Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Bush Clone Rick Perry announced he's running for President « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7036
Offline
« #30 : August 16, 2011, 05:21:40 PM »


Yet they're 26th in overall employment %, while New York and Pennsylvania are 23rd and 18th, respectively.

Bottom line, when your population as a state grows, so does the number of jobs in the state. More population means more consumers, which means more hiring to meet the needs of the new consumers. There was no magic wand that Perry waved to make this happen. He is the benefactor of circumstance, and it's only a beneficial circumstance if you focus solely on the number and completely ignore all of the circumstances surrounding it.

Why are so many people moving to Texas?

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31581
Online
« #31 : August 16, 2011, 05:22:41 PM »

Bottom line, when your population as a state grows, so does the number of jobs in the state.

Why aren't the other states that are experiencing population growth growing accordingly?


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7036
Offline
« #32 : August 16, 2011, 05:31:55 PM »

Bottom line, when your population as a state grows, so does the number of jobs in the state.

Why aren't the other states that are experiencing population growth growing accordingly?

Because if you read the article, in the last 2 years, all the old folks and rich Mexicans moved to Texas. Oh, and a high birthrate which of course explains the last 2 years or so without a shadow of a doubt. And this from a nobel prize winner? Genius!

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #33 : August 16, 2011, 05:36:32 PM »


Yet they're 26th in overall employment %, while New York and Pennsylvania are 23rd and 18th, respectively.

Bottom line, when your population as a state grows, so does the number of jobs in the state. More population means more consumers, which means more hiring to meet the needs of the new consumers. There was no magic wand that Perry waved to make this happen. He is the benefactor of circumstance, and it's only a beneficial circumstance if you focus solely on the number and completely ignore all of the circumstances surrounding it.

Why are so many people moving to Texas?

One of the biggest reasons might be because it's better than staying in Mexico.

Bottom line, when your population as a state grows, so does the number of jobs in the state.

Why aren't the other states that are experiencing population growth growing accordingly?

Because Texas is huge. Other states with similar percentages in population growth (Arizona, Wyoming, and Colorado) are far less populated states, so the similar rate of growth percentage-wise actually equals out to far fewer people numerically.


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #34 : August 16, 2011, 05:39:00 PM »

Bottom line, when your population as a state grows, so does the number of jobs in the state.

Why aren't the other states that are experiencing population growth growing accordingly?

Because if you read the article, in the last 2 years, all the old folks and rich Mexicans moved to Texas. Oh, and a high birthrate which of course explains the last 2 years or so without a shadow of a doubt. And this from a nobel prize winner? Genius!

Here's an equation for you;

Texas has created more jobs than any state in the union by far, yet is 26th in overall employment. How is this possible?


DynaMike Glennon

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1689
Offline
« #35 : August 16, 2011, 05:45:58 PM »

The reason why Texas created more jobs while Perry was in office was because they are ranked #1 in having the highest % of people on minimum wage in all 50 states. If you can pay more people cheap then of course there is going to be more jobs available. You might be below poverty level but hey, you got a job right? There are people that make more on unemployment than minimum wage.

NovaBuc

****
Starter

Posts : 842
Offline
« #36 : August 16, 2011, 06:16:49 PM »

Why are so many people moving to Texas?

 For government jobs?

 http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2011/08/16/how-rick-perry-created-jobs-in-texas

 
Quote
Since the recession began, Texas has added about 75,000 jobs, one of the few states with any job creation at all. Overall, the U.S. economy has lost about 5.6 million jobs since then. But net job gains in Texas have come entirely from government hiring, which accounts for 115,000 new jobs over the past three years. The private sector in Texas shed about 40,000 jobs during that time.

Federal government jobs. Texas: Up 7 percent. U.S.: Up 4.3 percent. Nationwide, the federal government has been a steady source of job growth over the last three years, and Texas has gotten more than its share, thanks to several big Army bases and a heavy NASA presence. Texas is one of the biggest beneficiaries of Washington spending, which pumps more than $200 billion per year into the state economy, according to the New York Times. That reliance on federal money could backfire if there are cutbacks in military and space spending in coming years, as many analysts expect.

State government jobs. Texas: Up 8.4 percent. U.S.: Down 0.1 percent. While other states were furloughing workers, Austin was hiring. The prominence of the energy sector, which accounts for about 10 percent of the Texas economy, is one reason, since taxes paid by the booming oil and gas industry have generally drifted upward over the last decade. Texas also accepted $6.4 billion in stimulus money from Washington, according to the Washington Post, which helped support employment in education, health care and various parts of government. This trend, too, could reverse soon: The stimulus money is all but spent, and Perry recently signed a state budget that will cut spending by $15 billion, or 8 percent, over the next year, with the biggest cuts coming in education and healthcare. That seems sure to kill some jobs.

Local government jobs. Texas: Up 6.1 percent. U.S.: Down 1.7 percent. Local government jobs in Texas have been protected by many of the same factors that have buoyed state government payrolls, such as strong business tax receipts and federal stimulus money. Local governments will probably start to downsize as stimulus funds dwindle and state spending falls.

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31581
Online
« #37 : August 16, 2011, 06:33:34 PM »

The reason why Texas created more jobs while Perry was in office was because they are ranked #1 in having the highest % of people on minimum wage in all 50 states. If you can pay more people cheap then of course there is going to be more jobs available. You might be below poverty level but hey, you got a job right? There are people that make more on unemployment than minimum wage.

I don't think this is the climate to be picky about job creation.  Especially when considering the high number of folks who have all but given up looking for a job - and they are even calculated in the jobless numbers.


Morgan

User is banned from postingMuted
*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14658
Offline
« #38 : August 16, 2011, 06:40:41 PM »


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry likes to tell Washington to stop meddling in state affairs. He vocally opposed the Obama administration's 2009 stimulus program to spur the economy and assist cash-strapped states.

Perry also likes to trumpet that his state balanced its budget in 2009, while keeping billions in its rainy day fund.

But he couldn't have done that without a lot of help from ... guess where? Washington.

Turns out Texas was the state that depended the most on those very stimulus funds to plug nearly 97% of its shortfall for fiscal 2010, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/23/news/economy/texas_perry_budget_stimulus/index.htm

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7036
Offline
« #39 : August 16, 2011, 06:41:09 PM »

Bottom line, when your population as a state grows, so does the number of jobs in the state.

Why aren't the other states that are experiencing population growth growing accordingly?

Because if you read the article, in the last 2 years, all the old folks and rich Mexicans moved to Texas. Oh, and a high birthrate which of course explains the last 2 years or so without a shadow of a doubt. And this from a nobel prize winner? Genius!

Here's an equation for you;

Texas has created more jobs than any state in the union by far, yet is 26th in overall employment. How is this possible?

Because more people are coming to the State than they can create jobs?

Morgan

User is banned from postingMuted
*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 14658
Offline
« #40 : August 16, 2011, 06:44:57 PM »

Only two days officially into his run for president, Texas Governor Rick Perry is already picking out opponents to tackle on the way to the White House. Enemy number one: The Federal Reserve’s Ben Bernanke.

Perry had some harsh words for Bernanke while speaking in Iowa on Monday. In a speech given in Cedar Rapids yesterday, Perry suggested that perhaps a little down-home Texas justice is what’s necessary to whip Bernanke and the Fed into shape.

“If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don’t know what you all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas,” Perry said. “Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous – or treasonous in my opinion.”

That practice of printing more money is what the Fed calls quantitative easing, and experts suggest that they will offer up a third round of paper-printing this year in order to lower borrowing costs. Perry says that with two attempts at quantitative easing thus far unable to save an economy in dire straits since the recession subsided in 2009, one more go will only make matters worse.

http://rt.com/usa/news/rick-perry-bernanke-president/

NovaBuc

****
Starter

Posts : 842
Offline
« #41 : August 16, 2011, 06:48:34 PM »

I don't think this is the climate to be picky about job creation.  Especially when considering the high number of folks who have all but given up looking for a job - and they are even calculated in the jobless numbers.

 I have to agree, though I think you meant to say they aren't calculated in the jobless numbers. At some point, you just need a job of some sort - even flipping burgers if it's all you can find. Having some sort of income coming in helps, and at least for me the mental aspect of knowing I have a job makes things that much better. I could adjust to fit my new budget if necessary, it'd be rough.. but certainly easier with something rather than nothing.
« : August 16, 2011, 06:52:27 PM NovaBuc »

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7036
Offline
« #42 : August 16, 2011, 06:55:59 PM »

Perry picking on Bernanke is fine by me. His handling of the Fed hasn't exactly been illuminating.

Personally I need to look at Perry a lot harder before I decide he is or is not a good candidate. Too early. My only point thus far in this debate is that for krugman to come out and do a hit piece saying Texas has only only been creating jobs because of old folks, rich Mexicans and a high birth rate does not simply spotlight his raging partisanship, but it is downright laughable. Texas might be lucky, there might be other valid reasons, but old folks and rich Mexicans? Come on, at least come up with something relatively plausible.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #43 : August 16, 2011, 06:58:10 PM »

Bottom line, when your population as a state grows, so does the number of jobs in the state.

Why aren't the other states that are experiencing population growth growing accordingly?

Because if you read the article, in the last 2 years, all the old folks and rich Mexicans moved to Texas. Oh, and a high birthrate which of course explains the last 2 years or so without a shadow of a doubt. And this from a nobel prize winner? Genius!

Here's an equation for you;

Texas has created more jobs than any state in the union by far, yet is 26th in overall employment. How is this possible?

Because more people are coming to the State than they can create jobs?

California and Florida have experienced more state-to-state immigration than Texas has, yet population growth in both of those states was slower than it was in Texas by a good margin. Remember how you were crapping on that whole birth rate and Mexican immigration thing? Well, what else explains it if not what Krugman said?


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7036
Offline
« #44 : August 16, 2011, 07:10:11 PM »



California and Florida have experienced more state-to-state immigration than Texas has, yet population growth in both of those states was slower than it was in Texas by a good margin. Remember how you were crapping on that whole birth rate and Mexican immigration thing? Well, what else explains it if not what Krugman said?

Did u just say California? The state where folks are leaving faster than they are arriving? That California?

And Krugman said MIDDLE CLASS Mexicans. Want to wager the validity of that statement? Here is a reasonable sounding response.

http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/274695/paul-krugman-still-wrong-about-texas#


Paul Krugman Is Still Wrong about Texas
August 15, 2011 4:41 P.M.
By Kevin D. Williamson
Tags: General Shenanigans, Intellectual Malpractice, Paul Krugman, Unemployment

Paul Krugman continues his campaign to discredit the economic success of Texas, and, as usual, he is none too particular about the facts. Let’s allow Professor K. to lay out his case:

[Texas] has, for many decades, had much faster population growth than the rest of America — about twice as fast since 1990. Several factors underlie this rapid population growth: a high birth rate, immigration from Mexico, and inward migration of Americans from other states, who are attracted to Texas by its warm weather and low cost of living, low housing costs in particular.

. . . But what does population growth have to do with job growth? Well, the high rate of population growth translates into above-average job growth through a couple of channels. Many of the people moving to Texas — retirees in search of warm winters, middle-class Mexicans in search of a safer life — bring purchasing power that leads to greater local employment. At the same time, the rapid growth in the Texas work force keeps wages low — almost 10 percent of Texan workers earn the minimum wage or less, well above the national average — and these low wages give corporations an incentive to move production to the Lone Star State.

What, indeed, does population growth have to do with job growth? Professor Krugman is half correct here — but intentionally only half correct: A booming population leads to growth in jobs. But there is another half to that equation: A booming economy, and the jobs that go with it, leads to population growth. Texas has added millions of people and millions of jobs in the past decade; New York, and many other struggling states, added virtually none of either. And it is not about the weather or other non-economic factors: People are not leaving California for Texas because Houston has a more pleasant climate (try it in August), or leaving New York because of the superior cultural amenities to be found in Nacogdoches and Lubbock. People are moving from the collapsing states into the expanding states because there is work to be had, and opportunity. I’ll set aside, for the moment, these “middle-class Mexicans” immigrating to Texas other than to note that “middle-class” does not broadly comport with the data we have on the economic characteristics of Mexican immigrants. To say the least.

Krugman points out that New York and Massachusetts both have lower unemployment rates than does Texas, and he goes on to parrot the “McJobs” myth: Sure, Texas has lots of jobs, but they’re crappy jobs at low wages. (My summary.) Or, as Professor Krugman puts it, “low wages give corporations an incentive to move production to the Lone Star State.” Are wages low in Texas? There is one question one must always ask when dealing with Paul Krugman’s statements of fact, at least when he’s writing in the New York Times: Is this true? Since he cites New York and Massachusetts, let’s do some comparison shopping between relevant U.S. metros: Harris County (that’s Houston and environs to you), Kings County (Brooklyn), and Suffolk County (Boston).

Houston, like Brooklyn and Boston, is a mixed bag: wealthy enclaves, immigrant communities rich and poor, students, government workers — your usual big urban confluence. In Harris County, the median household income is $50,577. In Brooklyn, it is $42,932, and in Suffolk County (which includes Boston and some nearby communities) it was $53,751. So, Boston has a median household income about 6 percent higher than Houston’s, while Brooklyn’s is about 15 percent lower than Houston’s.

Brooklyn is not the poorest part of New York, by a long shot (the Bronx is), and, looking at those income numbers above, you may think of something Professor Krugman mentions but does not really take properly into account: New York and Boston have a significantly higher cost of living than does Houston, or the rest of Texas. Even though Houston has a higher median income than does Brooklyn, and nearly equals that of Boston, comparing money wages does not tell us anything like the whole story: $50,000 a year in Houston is a very different thing from $50,000 a year in Boston or Brooklyn.

How different? Let’s look at the data: In spite of the fact that Texas did not have a housing crash like the rest of the country, housing remains quite inexpensive there. The typical owner-occupied home in Brooklyn costs well over a half-million dollars. In Suffolk County it’s nearly $400,000. In Houston? A whopping $130,100. Put another way: In Houston, the median household income is 39 percent of the cost of a typical house. In Brooklyn, the median household income is 8 percent of the cost of the median home, and in Boston it’s only 14 percent. When it comes to homeownership, $1 in earnings in Houston is worth a lot more than $1 in Brooklyn or Boston. But even that doesn’t really tell the story, because the typical house in Houston doesn’t look much like the typical house in Brooklyn: Some 64 percent of the homes in Houston are single-family units, i.e., houses. In Brooklyn, 85 percent are multi-family units, i.e. apartments and condos.

Professor Krugman knows that these variables are significant when comparing real standards of living, but he takes scant account of them. That is misleading, and he knows it is misleading.

Likewise, he knows that the rest of the picture is much more complicated than is his claim: “By the way, one in four Texans lacks health insurance, the highest proportion in the nation, thanks largely to the state’s small-government approach.” Is small government really the reason a relatively large number of Texans lack health insurance? Or might there be another explanation?

Houston, as it turns out, is a less white place than Boston (no surprise) and also less white than Brooklyn. All three cities have large foreign-born populations, but Houston is unusual in one regard: It is 41 percent Hispanic, many of those Hispanics are immigrants, and many of those immigrants are illegals. Texas is home to 1.77 million illegal immigrants; New York is home to about one-fourth that number, according to the Department of Homeland Security, and Massachusetts doesn’t make the top-25 list. Despite Professor Krugman’s invocation of “middle-class Mexicans” moving to Texas, the great majority of Mexican and Latin American immigrants to Texas are far from middle class. The fact is that, in the words of a Fed study, “Mexican immigrants are highly occupationally clustered (disproportionately work in distinctive “very low wage” occupations).” Nationally, Hispanic households’ median income is barely more than half that of non-Hispanic whites. And low-wage occupations also tend to be low-benefit occupations, meaning no health insurance. (That is, incidentally, one more good reason to break the link between employment and health insurance.)

Further, some 28 percent of Texans are 18 years old or younger, higher than either New York or Massachusetts. Younger people are more likely to work in low-wage/low-benefit jobs, less likely to have health insurance — and less likely to need it.

The issues of immigration and age also touch on Professor Krugman’s point about the number of minimum-wage workers in Texas vs. other states. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, which seems to be his source for this claim, puts the average hourly wage in Texas at 90 percent of the national average, which suggests that wages are not wildly out of line in Texas compared with other states. (And, again, it is important to keep those cost-of-living differences in mind.) In general, I’m skeptical of this particular BLS data, because it is based on questionnaire responses, rather than some firmer source of data such as tax returns. People may not know their actual wages in some cases (you’d be surprised), and in many more cases might not be inclined to tell the truth about it when the government is on the other end of the line.

Interestingly, the BLS results find that, nationwide, the number of people being paid less than minimum wage — i.e., those being paid an illegal wage — was 40 percent higher than those being paid the minimum wage. What sort of workers are likely to earn minimum wage or less than minimum wage? Disproportionately, teenagers and illegal immigrants. You will not be surprised to learn that just as Texas has many times as many illegals as New York or Massachusetts, and it also has significantly more 16-to-19-year-old workers than either state.

Another important fact that escapes Krugman: The fact that a large number of workers make minimum wage, combined with a young and immigrant-heavy population and millions of new jobs, may very well mean that teens and others who otherwise would not be working at all have found employment. That is a sign of economic strength, not of stagnation. New York and Massachusetts would be better off with millions of new minimum-wage workers — if that meant millions fewer unemployed people.

All of this is too obvious for Paul Krugman to have overlooked it. And I expect he didn’t. I believe that he is presenting willfully incomplete and misleading information to the public, and using his academic credentials to prop up his shoddy journalism.

ADDENDUM:

Also, Professor Krugman owes his readers a correction, having written: “almost 10 percent of Texan workers earn the minimum wage or less, well above the national average.” Unless I am mistaken, that is an undeniable factual error: The number of Texas workers earning minimum wage is about half that, just over 5 percent. The number of hourly workers earning minimum wage in Texas is nearly 10 percent, but hourly workers are, in Texas as everywhere, generally paid less than salaries workers. But hourly workers are only about 56 percent of the Texas work force. Can we get a correction, New York Times?
  Page: 1 2 3 4
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Bush Clone Rick Perry announced he's running for President « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools