My thread for the Day...
#1
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100817171

Set it in stone! South Dakota is 2013 Top State for Business

Quote:We have a winner—and a new champion!

South Dakota has climbed to the top of America's Top States for Business for 2013.

It is the best finish yet for the Mount Rushmore State, which has always been a quiet contender in our annual study, rarely finishing outside the Top 10. But more impressive, South Dakota's point total this year—1,639 out of a possible 2,500—is the highest logged by any state since we began keeping score in 2007.

Each year, we rate all 50 states on more than 50 metrics in 10 categories of competitiveness. We weight the categories based on how frequently they appear as selling points in state economic development marketing materials. That way, we hold the states to their own standards. You can read more about our methodology here.
This year's categories and point values are:
Cost of Doing Business (450 points)
Economy (375 points)
Infrastructure (350 points)
Workforce (300 points)
Quality of Life (300 points)
Technology & Innovation (300 points)
Business Friendliness (200 points)
Education (150 points)
Cost of Living (50 points)
Access to Capital (25 points)
In many ways, the competitive landscape—and our study—shifted in South Dakota's direction this year. A wave of tax cutting following the 2010 Republican sweep of statehouses across the country has led to a wave of states touting their low costs of doing business. This is more than just politics, and claims about low costs are hardly limited to Republican administrations. After all, the message falls on very receptive ears. Business leaders and groups we consult for our study consistently put cost at the top of their criteria.

CNBC's Scott Cohn announces the winner of this year's "America's Top States for Business"; and speaks with South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard ®, about the cost of doing business in his state.
As a result, Cost of Doing Business carries more weight than ever in our study.

And no state delivers the goods on low business costs the way South Dakota does.

South Dakota not only offers one of the lowest tax burdens in the country—no individual or corporate income taxes and low sales and property taxes—but it also has among the nation's lowest utility rates, wages and commercial rent costs. <snip>
Big Grin
Reply
#2
Sounds like you are on it. And will be cold too.Big Grin
Reply
#3
Anything over 75 is a waste of the sun's energy. Wink
Reply
#4
(07-24-2013, 10:54 AM)broadzilla Wrote: Anything over 75 is a waste of the sun's energy. Wink

LaughingLaughing
Reply
#5
Points for Mount Rushmore: -500. That things a sacrilege. Other than that.....Big Grin
Reply
#6
It may be great for business, but it's taking more federal tax dollars than it's contributing.

For total federal taxes paid, it's 45th out of 50

For federal taxes paid per capita, it's 36th out of 50

It's actually 43rd out of 50 for net contribution per captita, coming in at -$4,414 per person. That means that, after everyone has paid their taxes and after the government has given money to South Dakota, it's as though no one in South Dakota paid any federal taxes, and instead the rest of the country gave South Dakota just over $4000 per resident.

And South Dakota is 24th out of 50 in poverty rates.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S...verty_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax...e_by_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax...g_by_State


Good for business? Maybe.

Good for the general public? Not so much.
Reply
#7
(07-24-2013, 10:59 AM)Tiamat Wrote: Points for Mount Rushmore: -500. That things a sacrilege. Other than that.....Big Grin

Mount Rushmore before pic:

[Image: Mount+Rushmore+as+it+appeared+in+its+mor...+state.jpg]
Reply
#8
That's cool, Scar.
Reply
#9
(07-24-2013, 11:03 AM)csrowan Wrote: It may be great for business, but it's taking more federal tax dollars than it's contributing.

For total federal taxes paid, it's 45th out of 50

For federal taxes paid per capita, it's 36th out of 50

It's actually 43rd out of 50 for net contribution per captita, coming in at -$4,414 per person. That means that, after everyone has paid their taxes and after the government has given money to South Dakota, it's as though no one in South Dakota paid any federal taxes, and instead the rest of the country gave South Dakota just over $4000 per resident.

And South Dakota is 24th out of 50 in poverty rates.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S...verty_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax...e_by_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax...g_by_State


Good for business? Maybe.

Good for the general public? Not so much.

There are less children living in poverty in South Dakota than in Oregon. Smiling

http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tab...ny/321,322
Reply
#10
Oregon also has a population over 4.5 times as large as South Dakota. 3.8 million vs. 833 thousand.

SD has a slightly higher percentage of people in Poverty.
Reply
#11
Regardless, the point I was making was not which state was better, but rather that being the "Top State For Business" doesn't seem to mean much as far as the living conditions of the residents of the state or the net amount of money the state and it's successful businesses contribute to the federal government.
Reply
#12
(07-24-2013, 11:13 AM)csrowan Wrote: Oregon also has a population over 4.5 times as large as South Dakota. 3.8 million vs. 833 thousand.

SD has a slightly higher percentage of people in Poverty.

18% is bigger than 24%???? South Dakota has 18% poverty for children...and has been at that level for years. Oregon is at 24%, and keeps rising.
Did you even click my link?
Reply
#13
(07-24-2013, 11:20 AM)csrowan Wrote: Regardless, the point I was making was not which state was better, but rather that being the "Top State For Business" doesn't seem to mean much as far as the living conditions of the residents of the state or the net amount of money the state and it's successful businesses contribute to the federal government.

But...you were the one who brought up poverty. I was just letting you know that MORE children in Oregon are in poverty than in South Dakota.
Reply
#14
I said "higher percentage of people in poverty". I didn't specify children. And, according to my links, what I said was true.

But again, this was never meant to be a comparison between Oregon and South Dakota. You posted a story about how South Dakota was the Top State For Business. I posted statistics showing that the Top State For Business was also a Pretty Piss Poor State For Residents. That's all.
Reply
#15
http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsbr11-01.pdf

Page 3 - Percentage of PEOPLE in poverty
South Dakota 14.4% Oregon 15.8%

I have been doing research for over 9 years on South Dakota in comparison with Oregon...from reputable sources, not wikipedia.

Calling a state you know nothing about "piss poor"? Aren't you just a gem? Laughing

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/high-s...state.html

Graduation rates

Oregon 68% - all students, those with disabilities - 42%
South Dakota 83% - all students, those with disabilities - 84%

How much more data would you like me to show you from REPUTABLE sources???

I would suggest you give up the wikipedia before you start acting like you know everything again. http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?key...page346376
Reply
#16
Are we being civilized in here?
Reply
#17
Sure, if being civilized entails making a snap judgement on flawed data resulting in someone calling a state piss poor. Smiling
Reply
#18
Given that the data on the tables in my Wikipedia links are from the US Census Bureau and the IRS, I'd consider that to be from "reputable sources".

Although, on second glance at the tables, it would seem that I was looking at the column for the 2009 poverty rates, when South Dakota had a higher poverty rate than Oregon. The current data shows Oregon having a higher poverty rate than South Dakota.

But still, my point has NEVER been a comparison of Oregon to South Dakota. My point is that the "Top State for Business" takes more money from the federal government than it gives. The "Top State for Business" is still right in the middle of the list when it comes to poverty levels.

The "Top State for Business" is NOWHERE NEAR the Top State For Residents.



I had no idea you were planning on moving there (which I now assume you are, but don't know for sure), I thought you were just posting a thread. I thought that, given the number of people who think that good for business is good for people, I'd do a little quick research to find out just what being a great state for business meant as far as federal taxes and poverty. And I wasn't impressed.
Reply
#19
Some good news in an article about Sioux City.

America's Next Boom Town: Sioux Falls, South Dakota

http://m.theatlantic.com/business/archiv...ta/277579/

Most U.S. mayors would give their right arms for Mike Huether's problems. The 50-year-old Democratic mayor of Sioux Falls runs a city blessed with consistently low unemployment--the current rate is 3.5 percent--multiple thriving industries, and few of the woes that plague larger urban areas. A former executive who spent 15 years with Citibank, one of South Dakota's largest employers, Huether oversees city coffers that keep growing, thanks to economic prosperity in the region and a population boom. The downside? Managing the city's growth to provide for all those new residents, and making sure that low unemployment rates don't scare away employers who worry they can't fill positions.
Reply
#20
So, What is the 'Top State' for workers?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)