Hacker News Reader

Comment by sc68cal | Hacker News Reader

Texas was followed, in order, by North Carolina, Florida, Tennessee and Georgia. Ranking 46th through 49th in the rankings were Michigan, New Jersey, Illinois and New York, respectively.

I would attribute this to the amount of local taxes and labor laws that these states have. The "Worst" rankings are for states that have taxes and robust labor laws/strong unions.

Let's face it, they don't like Texas for their education systems. They like it because their overhead is much cheaper. Plus, East Texas is patent troll paradise.

Not that there is anything wrong with those motives, but it is useful to keep in mind.

View on HN

It's worth noting that Toyota has its plants primarily in the states that have scored the highest in this survey. San Antonio is one of their biggest plants, IIRC?

If you want to be in tech, OTOH, the two worst states are the only ones with VCs you actually hear about on HN.

It does make you think about American management culture.

[edit: I just noticed Illinois is third worst, hehhehheh. I wonder what DHH is thinking.]

I think this 'study' presents more useful information about the CEOs polled than anything else. Namely, that their insight into the health of an economy doesn't go much further than 'low taxes and corrupt government good, labor protection and regulation, bad'. Honestly, Tennessee is a better place to do business than New York? Moreover, it's one of the best while New York is one of the worst? So why does New York have a substantially larger economy? That is just a ludicrous statement, and it is empirically false.

This is little more than another exhibit to show how little American CEOs do to earn their ridiculous salaries.

New York in many ways is living off of past glories. There are two New Yorks... NYC and the rest of the state. The rest of New York is more like West Virginia. Read about places like Utica, Amsterdam, Jamestown and Binghamton. Buffalo is like Detriot -- 75% decline from its peak population.

Even much-vaunted New York City is not as strong as it might appear at first glance. NYC in 2011 is a single-industry town... finance IS NYC. Even the feature that defined NY for centuries -- New York Harbor -- contributes almost nothing to the state, as the freight terminals fled overegulation to New Jersey (of all places) in the 1970's.

30-40 years ago, the city had a diversified mix of finance, manufacturing and service industries. There were over 10,000 manufacturing firms in the city in 1970. Now both the NY state and city are living off of a sole benefactor -- Wall St.

Yes, this seems to be the trend, cities are picking their battles in terms of industry focus - much like successful companies actually.

It's not a choice! NYC was a sad place for a long time. Remember "Escape from New York"?

Listen to yourself. It's people with radical views such as yours who drive businesses out of a state. You're very narrow-minded. Put yourself into a CEO's position.

"why does New York have a substantially larger economy?"

Well, location, history (it was there first), a port (its not land-locked), huge population, and many other factors you've disregarded might be the reasons, for starters.

The only quote you give

'low taxes and corrupt government good, labor protection and regulation, bad'

is not in the article: it isn't a quote so why the quote marks? That's outright deception.

What an utterly ignorant and vicious post!

Since when has supporting taxes and labor laws ever been considered radical? Opposing laissez-faire has been OK since the end of the 19th century, I believe.

I think the view that what makes a place a good place to do business is primarily low taxes and a government hostile to labor (i.e. most of its constituency) is narrow-minded, personally. It shows a total disregard for what the long term effects of pandering to business interests at the expense of education and health might be. Sure, educated workers from other states can move to Texas, but what if those states follow Texas' lead as well?

So I disagree that my post is ignorant or vicious. That is not a direct quote, sure, but looking at the how the various states were obviously 'scored' it is pretty clear what is going on: CEOs value short-term and unsustainable business incentives, which may be fine as far as it goes but if you can't see why that precludes them from having a good influence on government policy then I don't have much else to say to you, I'm afraid.

You attempt to control the discussion by framing* the argument in biased terms. For example, you frame CEOs as seeking "low taxes and a government hostile to labor".

That is not true (as the article shows). CEOs use many factors in choosing a state within which to locate their business.

If everyone believed as you, would that be a good thing? Did you expect, in a democracy, that everyone else would see things as you do? If you are over the age of 12, it is late in life to realize that other people do not think as you do.

*The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain by George Lakoff

How do you get the impression I'm unaware other people have different opinions? If you disagree with me obviously I will think you're probably wrong, that's the nature of having an opinion, but I do try to stay relatively informed and am open to differing opinions and changing my mind. What I am not open to is people claiming I am being deceptive or that I am being ignorant and vicious based on relatively uncontroversial statements.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com