Texas added 37% of all net U.S. jobs since the recovery began.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 10, 2011 12:56 PM GMT
    Something for other states to learn from? I note as well that even how Texas deals with its budget is significantly different than other states.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375480710070472.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

    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.

    Texas is also among the few states that are home to more jobs than when the recession began in December 2007. The others are North Dakota, Alaska and the District of Columbia. If that last one sounds like an outlier at first, remember the government boom of the Obama era, which has helped loft D.C. payrolls 18,000 jobs above the pre-crisis status quo. Even so, Texas is up 30,800.

    What explains this Lone Star success? Texas is a big state, but its population of 24.7 million isn't that much bigger than the Empire State, about 19.5 million. California is a large state too—36.9 million—and yet it's down 11,400 jobs. Mr. Fisher argues that Texas is doing so well relative to other states precisely because it has rejected the economic model that now prevails in Washington, and we'll second that notion.

    Mr. Fisher notes that all states labor under the same Fed monetary policy and interest rates and federal regulation, but all states have not preformed equally well. Texas stands out for its free market and business-friendly climate.

    Capital—both human and investment—is highly mobile, and it migrates all the time to the places where the opportunities are larger and the burdens are lower. Texas has no state income tax. Its regulatory conditions are contained and flexible. It is fiscally responsible and government is small. Its right-to-work law doesn't impose unions on businesses or employees. It is open to global trade and competition: Houston, San Antonio and El Paso are entrepôts for commerce, especially in the wake of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

    Based on his conversations with CEOs and other business leaders, Mr. Fisher says one of Texas's huge competitive advantages is its ongoing reform of the tort system, which has driven litigation costs to record lows. 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.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 10, 2011 9:32 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidTexas added 37% of all net U.S. jobs since the recovery began.


    What?

    It wasn't New York? Or California? Or Illinois?

    Shocking!

    Don't worry. I am sure someone will soon give number on how much aid TX receives from the Blue states.

    Big Oil and the largest port of US along with cheap Mexican labor for farm workers help TX.
    "Texas stands out for its free market and business-friendly climate." Another keypoint.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 10, 2011 9:46 PM GMT
    key point from the article:

    "Mr. Fisher argues that Texas is doing so well relative to other states precisely because it has rejected the economic model that now prevails in Washington, and we'll second that notion."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 10, 2011 10:00 PM GMT
    What kind of jobs? Are there benefits included? Average salary per year or hourly?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 10, 2011 10:09 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidWhat kind of jobs? Are there benefits included? Average salary per year or hourly?

    They might be similar to the auto worker jobs in the south east, the right-to-work states, where the workers have resisted unionization and indicate satisfaction with their jobs, including compensation and benefits. The same situation where the unions are trying to end workers' ability to vote secretly on joining a union so they can be intimidated by the unions. Again same situation where the unions are supported in their quest by the Democrats who have been paid off. Those kind of jobs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 10, 2011 10:16 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidWhat kind of jobs? Are there benefits included? Average salary per year or hourly?

    They might be similar to the auto worker jobs in the south east, the right-to-work states, where the workers have resisted unionization and indicate satisfaction with their jobs, including compensation and benefits. The same situation where the unions are trying to end workers' ability to vote secretly on joining a union so they can be intimidated by the unions. Again same situation where the unions are supported in their quest by the Democrats who have been paid off. Those kind of jobs.


    Maybe. But what you're apparently in favor of is lower paying jobs with little or no benefits or worker protections. And that assumes that the jobs are mostly in the auto industry, which they're not but in healthcare and business services. Those are not equivalent to the jobs that are being lost in terms of pay and benefits.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 10, 2011 10:26 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidWhat kind of jobs? Are there benefits included? Average salary per year or hourly?

    They might be similar to the auto worker jobs in the south east, the right-to-work states, where the workers have resisted unionization and indicate satisfaction with their jobs, including compensation and benefits. The same situation where the unions are trying to end workers' ability to vote secretly on joining a union so they can be intimidated by the unions. Again same situation where the unions are supported in their quest by the Democrats who have been paid off. Those kind of jobs.


    Maybe. But what you're apparently in favor of is lower paying jobs with little or no benefits or worker protections. And that assumes that the jobs are mostly in the auto industry, which they're not but in healthcare and business services. Those are not equivalent to the jobs that are being lost in terms of pay and benefits.

    The auto industry is just an example. Another example is the aerospace workers that Boeing wants to hire in South Carolina. These are not bad jobs, relatively speaking. Some are probably lower paying jobs. Which is better, having those, or none, with the work outsourced to other countries?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2011 1:28 AM GMT
    REAL jobs, or the little manual labor shit jobs they give to the wetback illegals for cents on the dollar?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2011 1:48 AM GMT
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576375480710070472.html#articleTabs%3DarticleTexan construction employment has contracted by 2.3% since the end of the recession, along with manufacturing (a 1.8% decline) and information (-8.4%). But growth in other areas has surpassed these losses. Professional and business services accounted for 22.9% of the total jobs added, health care for 30.5% and trade and energy for 10.6%.


    This is interesting. Guess what would happen when Texas goes its own way with Medicaid and Medicare block grants, which will most likely reduce federal dollars going to Texas.

    BTW, the energy sector in PA is growing (just like Texas) because of natural gas.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2011 1:54 AM GMT
    same opinion pieceHe 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.


    Yay, regulation works.icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2011 3:56 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    same opinion pieceHe 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.


    Yay, regulation works.icon_lol.gif


    Yes - there was a tradeoff there as well - but one thing the article didn't point out is that one of the primary reasons Texas didn't see as great a runup in housing prices was because of less restrictive land use policies (ie zoning) which allowed for a greater supply to begin with. But restrictions on leverage likely played a role.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2011 4:03 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidWhat kind of jobs? Are there benefits included? Average salary per year or hourly?

    They might be similar to the auto worker jobs in the south east, the right-to-work states, where the workers have resisted unionization and indicate satisfaction with their jobs, including compensation and benefits. The same situation where the unions are trying to end workers' ability to vote secretly on joining a union so they can be intimidated by the unions. Again same situation where the unions are supported in their quest by the Democrats who have been paid off. Those kind of jobs.


    Maybe. But what you're apparently in favor of is lower paying jobs with little or no benefits or worker protections. And that assumes that the jobs are mostly in the auto industry, which they're not but in healthcare and business services. Those are not equivalent to the jobs that are being lost in terms of pay and benefits.

    The auto industry is just an example. Another example is the aerospace workers that Boeing wants to hire in South Carolina. These are not bad jobs, relatively speaking. Some are probably lower paying jobs. Which is better, having those, or none, with the work outsourced to other countries?


    Or, those companies could keep the jobs here and pay union wages and benefits and not make such obscene profits. Boeing in particular is egregious since most of its big ticket items are paid for with federal dollars, and in some cases, federally backed research leads to breakthroughs. Frankly, it's another example of privatizing profits and socializing the risk and debts. It's not capitalism, it's corporate welfare.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2011 4:12 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidWhat kind of jobs? Are there benefits included? Average salary per year or hourly?

    They might be similar to the auto worker jobs in the south east, the right-to-work states, where the workers have resisted unionization and indicate satisfaction with their jobs, including compensation and benefits. The same situation where the unions are trying to end workers' ability to vote secretly on joining a union so they can be intimidated by the unions. Again same situation where the unions are supported in their quest by the Democrats who have been paid off. Those kind of jobs.


    Maybe. But what you're apparently in favor of is lower paying jobs with little or no benefits or worker protections. And that assumes that the jobs are mostly in the auto industry, which they're not but in healthcare and business services. Those are not equivalent to the jobs that are being lost in terms of pay and benefits.

    The auto industry is just an example. Another example is the aerospace workers that Boeing wants to hire in South Carolina. These are not bad jobs, relatively speaking. Some are probably lower paying jobs. Which is better, having those, or none, with the work outsourced to other countries?


    Or, those companies could keep the jobs here and pay union wages and benefits and not make such obscene profits. Boeing in particular is egregious since most of its big ticket items are paid for with federal dollars, and in some cases, federally backed research leads to breakthroughs. Frankly, it's another example of privatizing profits and socializing the risk and debts. It's not capitalism, it's corporate welfare.


    What do you have against people in South Carolina getting jobs? Why shouldn't they have the right to charge what they want for their services?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2011 5:53 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidWhat do you have against people in South Carolina getting jobs? Why shouldn't they have the right to charge what they want for their services?


    I have a problem with states selling out to corporate America in a nationwide race to bottom where they undercut each other until no one can make a living wage. It's unAmerican, which you wouldn't understand being Canadian.icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2011 6:12 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidWhat do you have against people in South Carolina getting jobs? Why shouldn't they have the right to charge what they want for their services?


    I have a problem with states selling out to corporate America in a nationwide race to bottom where they undercut each other until no one can make a living wage. It's unAmerican, which you wouldn't understand being Canadian.icon_rolleyes.gif


    That's not what I asked. What do you have against people in South Carolina offering better value to those like Boeing? If they do the same job at a lower cost, why shouldn't Boeing be allowed to hire them and replace more expensive alternatives? Are the people in South Carolina not selling their services at wages that allow them to live?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2011 1:15 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidWhat do you have against people in South Carolina getting jobs? Why shouldn't they have the right to charge what they want for their services?


    I have a problem with states selling out to corporate America in a nationwide race to bottom where they undercut each other until no one can make a living wage. It's unAmerican, which you wouldn't understand being Canadian.icon_rolleyes.gif


    That's not what I asked. What do you have against people in South Carolina offering better value to those like Boeing? If they do the same job at a lower cost, why shouldn't Boeing be allowed to hire them and replace more expensive alternatives? Are the people in South Carolina not selling their services at wages that allow them to live?


    Again, for someone who claims to be pro-capitalism, you certainly don't seem to like "free markets" or "competition."

    You are trying to ascribe individual agency to what is an economic policy over which workers have little control. When states undercut each other, they are artificially driving down the cost of labor at the expense of workers. I don't have a problem is someone wants to offer their services at a lower cost, but that's not what's happening in "right to work" states.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2011 2:03 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidWhat do you have against people in South Carolina getting jobs? Why shouldn't they have the right to charge what they want for their services?


    I have a problem with states selling out to corporate America in a nationwide race to bottom where they undercut each other until no one can make a living wage. It's unAmerican, which you wouldn't understand being Canadian.icon_rolleyes.gif


    That's not what I asked. What do you have against people in South Carolina offering better value to those like Boeing? If they do the same job at a lower cost, why shouldn't Boeing be allowed to hire them and replace more expensive alternatives? Are the people in South Carolina not selling their services at wages that allow them to live?


    Again, for someone who claims to be pro-capitalism, you certainly don't seem to like "free markets" or "competition."

    You are trying to ascribe individual agency to what is an economic policy over which workers have little control. When states undercut each other, they are artificially driving down the cost of labor at the expense of workers. I don't have a problem is someone wants to offer their services at a lower cost, but that's not what's happening in "right to work" states.


    Talk about chutzpah. Why should unions have monopoly over a labor force in the workplace? Workers do have substantial and growing control over the services they provide. Not surprisingly, when governments put fewer restrictions on jobs, there are more jobs - exactly as you'd expect it to work. In this case, states aren't undercutting each other - right-to-work states are just giving workers the freedom not to belong to unions that were given exemptions under the anti-trust act.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2011 2:27 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidWhat do you have against people in South Carolina getting jobs? Why shouldn't they have the right to charge what they want for their services?


    I have a problem with states selling out to corporate America in a nationwide race to bottom where they undercut each other until no one can make a living wage. It's unAmerican, which you wouldn't understand being Canadian.icon_rolleyes.gif


    That's not what I asked. What do you have against people in South Carolina offering better value to those like Boeing? If they do the same job at a lower cost, why shouldn't Boeing be allowed to hire them and replace more expensive alternatives? Are the people in South Carolina not selling their services at wages that allow them to live?


    Again, for someone who claims to be pro-capitalism, you certainly don't seem to like "free markets" or "competition."

    You are trying to ascribe individual agency to what is an economic policy over which workers have little control. When states undercut each other, they are artificially driving down the cost of labor at the expense of workers. I don't have a problem is someone wants to offer their services at a lower cost, but that's not what's happening in "right to work" states.


    Talk about chutzpah. Why should unions have monopoly over a labor force in the workplace? Workers do have substantial and growing control over the services they provide. Not surprisingly, when governments put fewer restrictions on jobs, there are more jobs - exactly as you'd expect it to work. In this case, states aren't undercutting each other - right-to-work states are just giving workers the freedom not to belong to unions that were given exemptions under the anti-trust act.


    Private sector unionization has dropped by more than 20% in the last 30 years. There is no "monopoly."

    Coupled with more than 9% unemployment, workers have far less control over the services they provide than at any time in the last 40-50 years. People are desperate and state governments should not be enabled companies to engage in vulture capitalism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2011 2:45 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidWhat do you have against people in South Carolina getting jobs? Why shouldn't they have the right to charge what they want for their services?


    I have a problem with states selling out to corporate America in a nationwide race to bottom where they undercut each other until no one can make a living wage. It's unAmerican, which you wouldn't understand being Canadian.icon_rolleyes.gif


    That's not what I asked. What do you have against people in South Carolina offering better value to those like Boeing? If they do the same job at a lower cost, why shouldn't Boeing be allowed to hire them and replace more expensive alternatives? Are the people in South Carolina not selling their services at wages that allow them to live?


    Again, for someone who claims to be pro-capitalism, you certainly don't seem to like "free markets" or "competition."

    You are trying to ascribe individual agency to what is an economic policy over which workers have little control. When states undercut each other, they are artificially driving down the cost of labor at the expense of workers. I don't have a problem is someone wants to offer their services at a lower cost, but that's not what's happening in "right to work" states.


    Talk about chutzpah. Why should unions have monopoly over a labor force in the workplace? Workers do have substantial and growing control over the services they provide. Not surprisingly, when governments put fewer restrictions on jobs, there are more jobs - exactly as you'd expect it to work. In this case, states aren't undercutting each other - right-to-work states are just giving workers the freedom not to belong to unions that were given exemptions under the anti-trust act.


    Private sector unionization has dropped by more than 20% in the last 30 years. There is no "monopoly."

    Coupled with more than 9% unemployment, workers have far less control over the services they provide than at any time in the last 40-50 years. People are desperate and state governments should not be enabled companies to engage in vulture capitalism.


    Underemployment is closer to 20%. For those with certain educations or higher education the unemployment/underemployment rate is far lower. As a computer engineer, there are plenty of jobs available - but these fields also have lower barriers to entry with friends (at least one of whom is on RJ) who doesn't even have a computer programming specific degree who probably makes considerably more than the average programmer. (Parenthetically this is all despite the fact that there is supposed competition from places like India - though I know you have advocated against trade restrictions in the past).

    The monopoly over work forces is at the individual company level for unions and you know this. The irony is that you want to create even more restrictions to hiring (and firing) including higher minimum wage, higher benefits, increasing mandatory costs on healthcare - and you wonder why employers are reluctant to hire.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2011 2:54 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidPrivate sector unionization has dropped by more than 20% in the last 30 years. There is no "monopoly."

    Coupled with more than 9% unemployment, workers have far less control over the services they provide than at any time in the last 40-50 years. People are desperate and state governments should not be enabled companies to engage in vulture capitalism.

    Unionization is a monopoly in certain industries in certain states.

    The policies you embrace are significant cause of high unemployment. What you call "vulture capitalism" is capitalism without the government restrictions, high taxes, and union bullying that prevent jobs. Compare Illinois with Texas. The comparison could not be any more stark.

    You on the losing side again, continually wrong. The studies and opinions they lead to are clear, and the attempt to spin by Soros-funded organizations and their ilk are not effective.

    First 2 links same article - different comments
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2732812/posts
    http://townhall.com/columnists/vincentvernuccio/2011/06/10/what_the_boeing_company_teaches_about_right_to_work

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/25/growing-jobs-big-in-texas/

    http://www.nrtwc.org/tag/richard-vedder/

    http://www.app.com/article/20110602/NJOPINION03/306020095/Don-t-force-union-membership

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704698004576104573614702298.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    Vedder study Right-to-Work and Indiana’s Economic Future available as pdf here
    http://www.indianaprosperity.org/cobrand/default.asp?cb=rtw&cburl=indianaprosperity
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2011 3:12 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidPrivate sector unionization has dropped by more than 20% in the last 30 years. There is no "monopoly."

    Coupled with more than 9% unemployment, workers have far less control over the services they provide than at any time in the last 40-50 years. People are desperate and state governments should not be enabled companies to engage in vulture capitalism.

    Unionization is a monopoly in certain industries in certain states.

    The policies you embrace are significant cause of high unemployment. What you call "vulture capitalism" is capitalism without the government restrictions, high taxes, and union bullying that prevent jobs. Compare Illinois with Texas. The comparison could not be any more stark.

    You on the losing side again, continually wrong. The studies and opinions they lead to are clear, and the attempt to spin by Soros-funded organizations and their ilk are not effective.


    Which "industries"?

    And please, do not embarrass yourself by citing Town Hall and Free Republic as sources to back of up your arguments.

    Here's a compelling definition of vulture capitalism, which, by the way, has nothing to do with unions. In fact, unions are a bulwark against it.

    Vulture capitalism is a form of finance capitalism, a hydra-headed monster:

    Multinational corporations moving their manufacturing plants to wherever the labor market is cheapest, where they can get the largest tax break from the host country, and where they can be assured that the host country will adopt a currency that can be traded without danger of political interference.

    The Wall Street-Treasury Complex during the 1990s allowing its economic client-states (Japan, South Korea, Thailand, South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and others as occasion dictates) to make profits by selling their goods on the American market . [that's where we get all our appliances, electronics, and automobiles from; financiers let American industry rot and pour our MONEY elsewhere.]

    Vulture capitalists selling U.S. client-states military weaponry manufactured by their own corporations and peddled through the Pentagon and U.S. embassies world-wide [Haliburton, Lockheed, et al]

    the Wall Street-Treasury Complex forcing its client-states to open their economies so U.S. vulture capitalists can carve out huge profits through currency manipulation and asset-stripping

    the vulture capitalists buying assets (manufacturing plants, banks, businesses, etc.) at pennies on the dollar, when the client-state begins to go under, because the American market is saturated


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 11, 2011 3:16 PM GMT
    Added a link to post above to the Vedder study that goes into this in some depth. Provides historical context and controls for several factors. Whatever the definition of vulture capitalism is, an attempt to change the discussion, the facts supporting the thread are extremely clear, and you are totally helpless in trying to dispute them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2012 4:09 AM GMT
    Pretty incredible:
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/11/business-cycles-0?fsrc=rss

    20121208_woc571.png
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2012 4:50 AM GMT
    The stench of misleading is rank in here, so here's a little reality about the working poor:

    http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/in-texas-working-poor-families-struggle-to-get-a-1/nRpYF/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2012 5:33 AM GMT
    meninlove said The stench of misleading is rank in here, so here's a little reality about the working poor:

    http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/in-texas-working-poor-families-struggle-to-get-a-1/nRpYF/


    Fortunately, at least one of those stats has been reversed:
    http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/11/28/the-texas-education-miracle/

    The Department of Education has just released its first state-by-state comparison of education statistics, and the report has a few surprises. Texas performed extremely well, tying five other states for the third-best graduation rate in the country, at 86 percent.

    And Texas isn’t the only high-performing red state: Indiana, Nebraska, North Dakota and Tennessee all place within the top ten as well. Meanwhile, New York, Rhode Island, and California, all of which take a traditional, high-spending, blue model approach to education, are closer to the middle of the pack , with graduation rates in the mid-70s.


    The problem Texas faces though is that it has attracted far more unemployed who have been moving there to get jobs so it's not really that surprising that it has unique issues with respect to its social welfare system. That said, it's ironic that you want to downplay one of the largest growth drivers in the US - which suggests that you must also be pretty skeptical with respect to the supposed recovery under the Obama Administration.