Inevitable trade-off; and the Cali comparison doesn't hold until we build a time machine to kidnap Robert Noyce and D.W. Griffith.
current job creation is not the end-all be-all of economic metrics. Just because Texas is relatively booming now due to a banking crisis that crushed half of the economy, and made laborers accept whatever job they can scramble to get doesn't mean Texas is doing anywhere close to the blue-states overall. And even on present growth, it's sometimes ambiguous who is winning out---though this is not adjusted properly for population it shows the dangers of claiming that Texas is winning out overwhelmingly, especially when one consider the types of jobs created. Fact---the correlation between the green states and higher per capita income, as well as median household income, seems pretty strong. Also, fact---you cannot be "responsible" in any shape, way, or form, and chortle gleefully about present economic conditions without considering future generations. I cannot comprehend people who think it is a moral duty to be "fiscally responsible" and leave future generations with no debt, and yet cannot fathom why leaving future generations with as best of a planet as possible is in that same line of responsibility.
^^ You provide us a 1 year view, that's not even normalized for the states' populations? terrible analysis. If you were my intern I'd make you completely redo this crap.
if you were my employee, I would have fired you for not reading. thankfully I don't have to deal with finance majors who couldn't wrap their heads around big data analysis, let alone one block of text.
I don't care if there is a disclaimer. It's lazy analysis if you haven't corrected it before showing an executive like myself. love the attempt to throw a "buzzword" in there, though. BIG DATA LOOK AT ME I'M CURRENT ON LAST YEAR'S TRENDS! *snort*
yeah, but fortunately, this is an internet forum and not Google I/O or my job. But sure, I'll create data sets to illustrate my points as soon as you start illustrating your points with well, substance. This is also a forum where you spent an awful amount of time attacking a figure I presented, rather than the key points I brought forward. you haven't even bothered to address the point I was making with that figure. snorts at me for buzzwords, but can't stop personally aggrandizing Spend more time on the substance, rather than fantasizing about hiring someone like me. ain't gonna happen.
i'm going to use the conservative go-to favorite employment-to-population ratio to track performance before, during, and after said banking crisis--- (yay Mankiw!) http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/08/15/perrys-employment-record-in-texas/ huh.
^^ still not right. Need to adjust for age of population of states, as well as the fact that there are fewer mothers working in Texas, because, well, they don't have to since it costs much less to live. You really need to think more deeply before lobbing crap analysis over the fence. I am spending too much time having to mentor you.
ohh, chippy for someone who posts employment-population ad nauseam on the federal level without considering the older population at all. FYI, The national median age was 36.8 years-37.1 years depending on source, and that has always been edging up. Why you don't mention that in your chart-posting is beyond me. http://factfinder2.census.gov/legac..._lang=en&-redoLog=false&-state=st&-CONTEXT=st http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/median_age.html Median Age in Texas is 32.3. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/workforce/demo.php Source: Susan F**king Combs As for bolded statement, I'd like a source. That seems patently ridiculous to claim. "oh, so much less mothers work because, well, the men can find it easier to get jobs to take care of their baby mommas". Because if you're not claiming that, your statement sounds a bit like this--- "It's easier to get jobs" --- "Therefore, people will not get them.". sloppy. your first fact is actually going against you and shows you haven't done any research. Your second makes no sense unless you have a 50s "Wifey gonna cook" mentality, and is unsubstantiated to say the least. If you want, you can pay me to mentor you. I'll give you a discount out of love.
Before we veer off the topic too much, fact: green states are, have been, and will continue to be significant engines of economic prosperity that keep something behind for future generations that don't involve sky-high cancer rates. They are a model of responsibility that goes beyond fiscal obligations. People should owe future generations more than a clean slate on debt: they should aspire to have the decency to leave the world in as less of a shoddy condition than they are currently planning to dump off on their children and grand-children, if they want to be regarded as responsible.
^^ You haven't proven your point. Texas also has more youth under working age. Lots of confused smileys and bolding shows that you're trying to compensate for not having all the facts.
What, do you want me to adjust for working population age when Texas' own comptroller argues that the higher percentage of working population/young people is an advantage for Texas? That makes the chart look worse, dude, and your thin excuses otherwise look like someone who is just coming up with whatever economic rationale you can think of and hoping that one sticks, without any analysis. I'm not even going to bother dismantling your new claim (you go from Texas is too old! to Texas is too young!), though I'll keep a note to challenge you on America's older population whenever you post those employment-population charts on the federal level with zero analysis. Anyways, this is a sidebar. Enough with this green state=economic calamity bulls**t. that claim is very very dubious, as I have demonstrated.
the burden of proof is on you, brah. You are the one that threw out the claim about green states doing better. But you can't back it up with facts, then complain and moan when you get called out on it.
bahahaha. I missed the part where you addressed median household income, and per capita income of states vs green state. that seems correlatious. If you track back--- Median household income, median income per capita, GDP per capita all back me up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP Texas ranks below the national average, while California, for example ranks much above. There's like a $6000 difference. Lots of catching up to do. Forget New York. I also missed the part where "calling me out" involved getting smacked into facts. Really, you want to argue that Texas and it's retiree population is holding down employment-population relative to the federal level? care to revisit that analysis?
again you need to normalize data. Your lazily tossing out median per capita income without adjusting for cost of living is nonsense. You think it costs the same to live in the Bay area and San Antonio?
Don't be so lazy Texxx. By the way, I actually took the time to construct your argument to the fullest---while I would have liked better source data, I'm not exactly going to go about buying database access to state information for a fun back-of-the-napkin experiment. http://www.missourieconomy.org/indicators/cost_of_living/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income#States_ranked_by_median_household_income I won't go into the full results, but you'll note the following calculations--- $53686.95 Texas Median Income adjusted for COL (worst green state) $55041.64 Washington Median Income adjusted for COL (second best green state) $56351.04 Minnesota Median Income adjusted for COL (seventh best green state) The point is to argue that green states can do well---but hey, I will delve a bit on the blue-state proposition I threw out there as well. there are a mix of blue-state peeps doing badly and red-states doing goodly, I won't deny, on those green rankings. shame shame shame. looky there! You are right that adjusting for cost of living muddies the waters, though I still maintain that blue states have economic advantages beyond just looking at job growth in pure numbers rather than in proportions or in considering other economic metrics. Of course, tracking back, any arguments with regards of the moral implications of releasing more carcinogens and polluting more for future generations seems to have gone on the side---I suppose you will not care to address those. In summary, it certainly seems like your purported claim that there is correlation for "green states" to economic disfavor seems...not so strongly connected, especially as you trace the map from Washington, to California (of course bastions of tech, and the new economy) to New York to hell, Kansas, to Texas. as for blue state vs Texas, if you want to delve into that argument as a sidebar---some findings--- Maryland $57,380 Colorado $55,387 I'll leave you to do the rest. Remind me to demand a full analysis of your employment-population charts. that seems to be a weakness of yours.
i'm about challenging myself and getting good info out there. learning as well as hopefully leaving something for someone out there (maybe like that one dude who really cares like I do LOL). if it makes people like Texxx think twice about what responsibility, in the fullest sense of the word, means, so much the better. i haven't given up the ghost on that.
