Since 2005, 80% of the new private sector jobs were created in Texas? TX FTW?

[DesiPower]

Someone on this forum posted an interactive link a few months ago with major metropolitan areas showing where people are coming from and when they are going to.

Anyone still have it?

here you go... but maybe this map is a liberal bias too... who knows...

 

[PJABBER]

here you go... but maybe this map is a liberal bias too... who knows...

Wow, that is a great link!

 

[PingSpike]

There is a misconception about TX being a ultra conservative state, Obama won from several counties. Its a very pro Hispanic immigrant state with a sanctuary city. It is at par with the rest of the nation when it comes to being gay and lesbian friendly.

Oh I pretty much agree, but the people I'm thinking of that eventually fled there were the ones that seemed to believe those misconceptions. They seemed to have a lot of negative things to say about Texas and other red states but when push came to shove that's where the ended up.

 

[Wreckem]

Well, most Texas suburbs/cities didn't experience a property bubble. There are foreclosures though.

Currently, Texas has a big state deficit under King Perry. Too bad he is going to win even though I'm voting against his ass.

Currently Texas is not under a deficit for the current budget, in large part due to a 5% across the board cuts made by state agencies in the spring. The next two year budget has a projected $12billion shortfall, thats $6billion/year for those mathematically challenged. That is $6billion per year that will be cut.

Huge is the $30billion yearly shortfalls other states have. Not to mention Texas could crack open its piggy bank known as the rainy day fund, and not have to cut much at all.

 

[Wreckem]

So if things are so bad here, why are people moving to Texas and moving out of the paradise called California. Texas is probably going to gain several house seats with next redistricting, while California will probably lose 1.

Texas is currently projected as picking up 3-4 new house seats.

 

[Wreckem]

You and others keep claiming that people are leaving in droves. Even your own right wing piece that is full of weasel words and stats say less than ½% has moved. Yet their, CA, overall population has still increased. They averaged a 1% increase from 08 to 09. 1% is higher than most and puts them right in the average range of increase.
http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2009-03.xls

But hey why let a little thing like facts mess with your weasel articles and perceptions.

You take a snippet of one year. California is projected to lose 1 House Seat, while Texas is gaining 3-4. New York will be losing 2.

California doesn't have a net loss of population. It just hasn't kept up with population growth of other states over the past decade.

And yes plenty of businesses have left California over the past decade and plenty are still paring down their operations.

The gerrymandering in Texas is going to be EPIC this time around. They are going to have to do heavy alterations because while Texas is netting 3-4 seats, population in Texas has shifted and several seats will be consolidated.

 

[Acanthus]

Currently Texas is not under a deficit for the current budget, in large part due to a 5% across the board cuts made by state agencies in the spring. The next two year budget has a projected $12billion shortfall, thats $6billion/year for those mathematically challenged. That is $6billion per year that will be cut.

Huge is the $30billion yearly shortfalls other states have. Not to mention Texas could crack open its piggy bank known as the rainy day fund, and not have to cut much at all.

Texas does not have a budget shortfall because of $9bil in direct aid from ARRA.

They are a lot more fiscally responsible than other states, however. So your point still stands.

 

[her209]

California is projected to lose 1 House Seat, while Texas is gaining 3-4. New York will be losing 2.

Where is Texas going to be gaining seats though? Is it going to be in the bluer or redder parts of Texas? My guess is that its going to be the former.

 

[CLite]

Interesting, Texas has the worst tax scheme for our company. Our company operates in NJ/Cali/Texas and a few other states. We pay far more in Texas and try to label as many projects (while not being illegal) as we can as originating in NJ and other states.

Texas has a flat 1% "Franchise tax" on corporate earnings (not profit, earnings). The way our company operates we are fairly cash neutral, most of the money goes to bonuses to all the staff at the end of the year. This is essentially zero tax in all states, except for Texas, which reams us a new one every year.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Interesting, Texas has the worst tax scheme for our company. Our company operates in NJ/Cali/Texas and a few other states. We pay far more in Texas and try to label as many projects (while not being illegal) as we can as originating in NJ and other states.

Texas has a flat 1% "Franchise tax" on corporate earnings (not profit, earnings). The way our company operates we are fairly cash neutral, most of the money goes to bonuses to all the staff at the end of the year. This is essentially zero tax in all states, except for Texas, which reams us a new one every year.

The big difference is the employees in Texas don't pay a state income tax.

 

[CLite]

Yes, however that doesn't determine if we are going to hire in Texas or Louisiana or NJ/etc.

The claim that Texas taxes are why companies are moving to Texas is ludicrous, very few companies are incorporated in Texas. The 1% franchise tax is just far too much to pay, as far as the oil majors: Exxon Mobile is in NJ, Valero in Delaware, Chevron is in CA. Software companies/etc. are all incorporated in other states.

Most likely it's the cheap land, access to the Gulf of Mexico for trade and access to cheap parts from Mexico that drive companies to open headquarters/branches in Texas. It has absolutely nothing to do with the tax environment, anyone claiming that is an ignoramus.

 

[techs]

Yes, however that doesn't determine if we are going to hire in Texas or Louisiana or NJ/etc.

The claim that Texas taxes are why companies are moving to Texas is ludicrous, very few companies are incorporated in Texas. The 1% franchise tax is just far too much to pay, as far as the oil majors: Exxon Mobile is in NJ, Valero in Delaware, Chevron is in CA. Software companies/etc. are all incorporated in other states.

Most likely it's the cheap land, access to the Gulf of Mexico for trade and access to cheap parts from Mexico that drive companies to open headquarters/branches in Texas. It has absolutely nothing to do with the tax environment, anyone claiming that is an ignoramus.

Add to that it is far easier to build up an undeveloped area than to maintain a developed one.

In Texas you buy cheap land, build a cheap factory, and save a bundle.
When the area gets built up adding capacity to things like sewers cost a lot more to dig up the existing sewers and upgrading them, than to just cut into the land and lay down a new sewer, without having to worry about keeping the old one running while you upgrade it.

So the factory moves somewhere else and starts again with cheap land, etc.

As to social services, you go to Texas, build a new business and you get to start fresh with new workers or almost all new workers. And, laws be damned, companies hire younger, healthier employees. Less labor costs, health costs,etc. And since you'll be gone when employees start getting older, or sicker, or reach the age when they suddenly realize they have no retirement plan, you just move the factory.

 

[Vette73]

You take a snippet of one year. California is projected to lose 1 House Seat, while Texas is gaining 3-4. New York will be losing 2.

California doesn't have a net loss of population. It just hasn't kept up with population growth of other states over the past decade.

And yes plenty of businesses have left California over the past decade and plenty are still paring down their operations.

The gerrymandering in Texas is going to be EPIC this time around. They are going to have to do heavy alterations because while Texas is netting 3-4 seats, population in Texas has shifted and several seats will be consolidated.

No that was after I posted the last 20 years here...

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...ifornia#met=population&idim=state:06000:48000

And again you make more claims that CA is losing a seat when there is no factual evidance of it.
Put up or shut up, that simple.

 

[matt0611]

No that was after I posted the last 20 years here...

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...ifornia#met=population&idim=state:06000:48000

And again you make more claims that CA is losing a seat when there is no factual evidance of it.
Put up or shut up, that simple.

From what I understand, just because California is not losing population DOES NOT mean they will not lose a seat in the house.

They are not expected to increase the size of the house beyond 435 members after the 2010 census but will instead redistribute the number of seats to the 50 states based on the population. So it is quite possible California could lose a seat after 2010.

 

[spacejamz]

No that was after I posted the last 20 years here...

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...ifornia#met=population&idim=state:06000:48000

And again you make more claims that CA is losing a seat when there is no factual evidance of it.
Put up or shut up, that simple.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/16/inland-population-tilt-will-reshape-districts/

For the first time in history, California will gain no congressional districts after the 2010 census and could lose one because other states are growing faster.

 

[Vette73]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/16/inland-population-tilt-will-reshape-districts/

For the first time in history, California will gain no congressional districts after the 2010 census and could lose one because other states are growing faster.

I guess you missed this part...

November 16, 2009

Try again and you will see most show them holding at what they have. Some even said maybe gain 1 but they have backed off as other states have grown quick enough to offset CA's gains.