Nothing generates unemployment like liberal policy

[danielpalos]

President Obamas liberal policies have generated ten million jobs

.

Remember this the next time a liberal says Obama created thousands of jobs.

Work force participation rate at the start of each year according to the bureau of labor statistics.

2007 - 66.4 %
2008 - 66.2 %
2009 - 65.7 %
2010 - 64.8 %
2011 - 64.2 %
2012 - 63.7 %
2013 - 63.6 %
2014 - 62.9 %
2015 - 62.9 %
2016 - 62.7 %

And what do you think that means? That in no way counters the fact that jobs have increased every month since February 2010.
As for explanation of declining labor force, here is the percent of the population that does not want a job:
2007 - 31.6%
2008 - 31.7%
2009 - 31.9%
2010 - 32.7%
2011 - 33.1%
2012 - 33.7%
2013 - 33.7%
2014 - 34.5%
2015 - 34.6%
2016 - 34.9%
34.9%

We could be lowering our tax burden on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and improving the efficiency of our economy at the same time. Unemployment compensation could solve for simple poverty.

 

[danielpalos]

President Obamas liberal policies have generated ten million jobs




.

Remember this the next time a liberal says Obama created thousands of jobs.


Work force participation rate at the start of each year according to the bureau of labor statistics.

2007 - 66.4 %
2008 - 66.2 %
2009 - 65.7 %
2010 - 64.8 %
2011 - 64.2 %
2012 - 63.7 %
2013 - 63.6 %
2014 - 62.9 %
2015 - 62.9 %
2016 - 62.7 %

And what do you think that means? That in no way counters the fact that jobs have increased every month since February 2010.
As for explanation of declining labor force, here is the percent of the population that does not want a job:
2007 - 31.6%
2008 - 31.7%
2009 - 31.9%
2010 - 32.7%
2011 - 33.1%
2012 - 33.7%
2013 - 33.7%
2014 - 34.5%
2015 - 34.6%
2016 - 34.9%
34.9%

What does that prove?

1) People who once made $80,000 a year can't afford a job with the income of a Walmart or a McDonalds.

2) Obama's job numbers also don't refelect family's who now must work multiple jobs to make up for the large salary they once had

3) Obama's job numbers don't consider individuals who must work more than two employers because the company they had chosen only had enough business to sustain their employment for four months.

This is the truth about the Obama economy many liberals don't want to come to when they boast monthly job reports, because HAD the economy done so well it would not have been a major concern for voters in going with a change to a Republican candidate. That 62% - 63% participation rate shows we were long from the growing economy delusion that liberal democrats want people to believe.

unemployment compensation could solve this dilemma on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

 

[pinqy]

President Obamas liberal policies have generated ten million jobs




.

Remember this the next time a liberal says Obama created thousands of jobs.


Work force participation rate at the start of each year according to the bureau of labor statistics.

2007 - 66.4 %
2008 - 66.2 %
2009 - 65.7 %
2010 - 64.8 %
2011 - 64.2 %
2012 - 63.7 %
2013 - 63.6 %
2014 - 62.9 %
2015 - 62.9 %
2016 - 62.7 %

And what do you think that means? That in no way counters the fact that jobs have increased every month since February 2010.
As for explanation of declining labor force, here is the percent of the population that does not want a job:
2007 - 31.6%
2008 - 31.7%
2009 - 31.9%
2010 - 32.7%
2011 - 33.1%
2012 - 33.7%
2013 - 33.7%
2014 - 34.5%
2015 - 34.6%
2016 - 34.9%
34.9%

What does that prove?

That the drop in the Labor Force Participation Rate is almost entirely due to fewer people wanting/needing to work.

1) People who once made $80,000 a year can't afford a job with the income of a Walmart or a McDonalds.

That has nothing to do with the participation rate.

2) Obama's job numbers also don't refelect family's who now must work multiple jobs to make up for the large salary they once had

Whose job numbers do? But the data are published....which would you like: the number of people working multiple jobs, the percent of employed people working multiple jobs, families with husband and wife working, families with husband and wife working as a percent of married couples?

3) Obama's job numbers don't consider individuals who must work more than two employers because the company they had chosen only had enough business to sustain their employment for four months.

No one's number consider that. How could they?

That 62% - 63% participation rate shows we were long from the growing economy delusion that liberal democrats want people to believe.

How do you think it shows that?

 

[JoeNormal]

What does that prove?

1) People who once made $80,000 a year can't afford a job with the income of a Walmart or a McDonalds.

2) Obama's job numbers also don't refelect family's who now must work multiple jobs to make up for the large salary they once had

3) Obama's job numbers don't consider individuals who must work more than two employers because the company they had chosen only had enough business to sustain their employment for four months.

This is the truth about the Obama economy many liberals don't want to come to when they boast monthly job reports, because HAD the economy done so well it would not have been a major concern for voters in going with a change to a Republican candidate. That 62% - 63% participation rate shows we were long from the growing economy delusion that liberal democrats want people to believe.

This phenomenon goes back way farther than Obama.

So you are accepting that those policies of the last eight years haven't worked in reestablishing the loss of income many families have felt?

What does that prove?

1) People who once made $80,000 a year can't afford a job with the income of a Walmart or a McDonalds.

2) Obama's job numbers also don't refelect family's who now must work multiple jobs to make up for the large salary they once had

3) Obama's job numbers don't consider individuals who must work more than two employers because the company they had chosen only had enough business to sustain their employment for four months.

This is the truth about the Obama economy many liberals don't want to come to when they boast monthly job reports, because HAD the economy done so well it would not have been a major concern for voters in going with a change to a Republican candidate. That 62% - 63% participation rate shows we were long from the growing economy delusion that liberal democrats want people to believe.

This phenomenon goes back way farther than Obama.

So you are accepting that those policies of the last eight years haven't worked in reestablishing the loss of income many families have felt?

I don't know which policies in particular you're talking about but I would say that the whole strategy of kowtowing to corporations and the financial sector (which began in the Reagan years and has continued apace ever since) has been disastrous for the working class.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

President Obamas liberal policies have generated ten million jobs




.

Remember this the next time a liberal says Obama created thousands of jobs.


Work force participation rate at the start of each year according to the bureau of labor statistics.

2007 - 66.4 %
2008 - 66.2 %
2009 - 65.7 %
2010 - 64.8 %
2011 - 64.2 %
2012 - 63.7 %
2013 - 63.6 %
2014 - 62.9 %
2015 - 62.9 %
2016 - 62.7 %

And what do you think that means? That in no way counters the fact that jobs have increased every month since February 2010.
As for explanation of declining labor force, here is the percent of the population that does not want a job:
2007 - 31.6%
2008 - 31.7%
2009 - 31.9%
2010 - 32.7%
2011 - 33.1%
2012 - 33.7%
2013 - 33.7%
2014 - 34.5%
2015 - 34.6%
2016 - 34.9%
34.9%

What does that prove?

That the drop in the Labor Force Participation Rate is almost entirely due to fewer people wanting/needing to work.

1) People who once made $80,000 a year can't afford a job with the income of a Walmart or a McDonalds.

That has nothing to do with the participation rate.

2) Obama's job numbers also don't refelect family's who now must work multiple jobs to make up for the large salary they once had

Whose job numbers do? But the data are published....which would you like: the number of people working multiple jobs, the percent of employed people working multiple jobs, families with husband and wife working, families with husband and wife working as a percent of married couples?

3) Obama's job numbers don't consider individuals who must work more than two employers because the company they had chosen only had enough business to sustain their employment for four months.

No one's number consider that. How could they?

That 62% - 63% participation rate shows we were long from the growing economy delusion that liberal democrats want people to believe.

How do you think it shows that?

That is completely laughable if your rebuttals is that nearly HALF of all Americans NOT working (40%) is due to the fact they have chosen not to work due to retirement or school. The statistical labor participation average is 63%, let that figure sink in. The economy was a HUGE concern in the last election, there are more Americans working multiple part time jobs to make up for the high paying long term full time career they once had. That in itself has everything to do with the current labor participation rate, which was higher in 2007 than at any time under President Obama. More Americans are having to accept food stamps, under a stagnant economy that had maybe a 2% GDP growth at best, if it reached even that high.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

What does that prove?

1) People who once made $80,000 a year can't afford a job with the income of a Walmart or a McDonalds.

2) Obama's job numbers also don't refelect family's who now must work multiple jobs to make up for the large salary they once had

3) Obama's job numbers don't consider individuals who must work more than two employers because the company they had chosen only had enough business to sustain their employment for four months.

This is the truth about the Obama economy many liberals don't want to come to when they boast monthly job reports, because HAD the economy done so well it would not have been a major concern for voters in going with a change to a Republican candidate. That 62% - 63% participation rate shows we were long from the growing economy delusion that liberal democrats want people to believe.

This phenomenon goes back way farther than Obama.

So you are accepting that those policies of the last eight years haven't worked in reestablishing the loss of income many families have felt?

What does that prove?

1) People who once made $80,000 a year can't afford a job with the income of a Walmart or a McDonalds.

2) Obama's job numbers also don't refelect family's who now must work multiple jobs to make up for the large salary they once had

3) Obama's job numbers don't consider individuals who must work more than two employers because the company they had chosen only had enough business to sustain their employment for four months.

This is the truth about the Obama economy many liberals don't want to come to when they boast monthly job reports, because HAD the economy done so well it would not have been a major concern for voters in going with a change to a Republican candidate. That 62% - 63% participation rate shows we were long from the growing economy delusion that liberal democrats want people to believe.

This phenomenon goes back way farther than Obama.

So you are accepting that those policies of the last eight years haven't worked in reestablishing the loss of income many families have felt?

I don't know which policies in particular you're talking about but I would say that the whole strategy of kowtowing to corporations and the financial sector (which began in the Reagan years and has continued apace ever since) has been disastrous for the working class.

I'll make it easy for you. Outside of the stimulus package, what specifically has the liberal democrats proposed in stopping businesses from taking American jobs overseas and encourage them to bring those jobs here in the United States instead? What was the liberal democrat economic plan to solve that issue AND establish for the U.S. a strong booming economy of high paying long term jobs and job growth?

 

[JoeNormal]

What does that prove?

1) People who once made $80,000 a year can't afford a job with the income of a Walmart or a McDonalds.

2) Obama's job numbers also don't refelect family's who now must work multiple jobs to make up for the large salary they once had

3) Obama's job numbers don't consider individuals who must work more than two employers because the company they had chosen only had enough business to sustain their employment for four months.

This is the truth about the Obama economy many liberals don't want to come to when they boast monthly job reports, because HAD the economy done so well it would not have been a major concern for voters in going with a change to a Republican candidate. That 62% - 63% participation rate shows we were long from the growing economy delusion that liberal democrats want people to believe.

This phenomenon goes back way farther than Obama.

So you are accepting that those policies of the last eight years haven't worked in reestablishing the loss of income many families have felt?

What does that prove?

1) People who once made $80,000 a year can't afford a job with the income of a Walmart or a McDonalds.

2) Obama's job numbers also don't refelect family's who now must work multiple jobs to make up for the large salary they once had

3) Obama's job numbers don't consider individuals who must work more than two employers because the company they had chosen only had enough business to sustain their employment for four months.

This is the truth about the Obama economy many liberals don't want to come to when they boast monthly job reports, because HAD the economy done so well it would not have been a major concern for voters in going with a change to a Republican candidate. That 62% - 63% participation rate shows we were long from the growing economy delusion that liberal democrats want people to believe.

This phenomenon goes back way farther than Obama.

So you are accepting that those policies of the last eight years haven't worked in reestablishing the loss of income many families have felt?

I don't know which policies in particular you're talking about but I would say that the whole strategy of kowtowing to corporations and the financial sector (which began in the Reagan years and has continued apace ever since) has been disastrous for the working class.

I'll make it easy for you. Outside of the stimulus package, what specifically has the liberal democrats proposed in stopping businesses from taking American jobs overseas and encourage them to bring those jobs here in the United States instead? What was the liberal democrat economic plan to solve that issue AND establish for the U.S. a strong booming economy of high paying long term jobs and job growth?

Nothing. They've been as bad as the conservative republicans.

 

[pinqy]

President Obamas liberal policies have generated ten million jobs




.

Remember this the next time a liberal says Obama created thousands of jobs.


Work force participation rate at the start of each year according to the bureau of labor statistics.

2007 - 66.4 %
2008 - 66.2 %
2009 - 65.7 %
2010 - 64.8 %
2011 - 64.2 %
2012 - 63.7 %
2013 - 63.6 %
2014 - 62.9 %
2015 - 62.9 %
2016 - 62.7 %

And what do you think that means? That in no way counters the fact that jobs have increased every month since February 2010.
As for explanation of declining labor force, here is the percent of the population that does not want a job:
2007 - 31.6%
2008 - 31.7%
2009 - 31.9%
2010 - 32.7%
2011 - 33.1%
2012 - 33.7%
2013 - 33.7%
2014 - 34.5%
2015 - 34.6%
2016 - 34.9%
34.9%

What does that prove?

That pretty much all of the drop in the labor force participation is due to a lower percent of people who want to work.

1) People who once made $80,000 a year can't afford a job with the income of a Walmart or a McDonalds.

Of course not. But that has nothing to do with the labor force participation rate.

2) Obama's job numbers also don't refelect family's who now must work multiple jobs to make up for the large salary they once had;/quote] And what percent of people with jobs work multiple jobs?

3) Obama's job numbers don't consider individuals who must work more than two employers because the company they had chosen only had enough business to sustain their employment for four months.

How could they?

But none of that has anything to do with the participation rate.

 

[P@triot]

We could be lowering our tax burden on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and improving the efficiency of our economy at the same time.

Better yet - we could be adhering to the U.S. Constitution and instantly solving all of our problems.

 

[P@triot]

Unemployment compensation could solve for simple poverty.

You've repeated this outrageous lie about a dozen times now. First of all, your lack of knowledge about basic economics is horrifying. There is no "solving" poverty. You cannot have EVERYONE in middle class or EVERYONE wealthy. There literally must be poverty for money to have value. If everyone had it - it would have no value. None. At all. That's why fingernails have no value. Because everyone has them. So for money to have any value at all, it requires some to be without it while craving it.

More importantly to this discussion - unemployment was created in 1935 as a part of the Social Security Act. That is 82 years ago for those who aren't good with math. If "unemployment compensation" could "solve poverty" it would have done so already nitwit. It's had 82 years to "solve" poverty.

Let me guess - you have trouble holding a job, uh?

 

[pinqy]

President Obamas liberal policies have generated ten million jobs




.

Remember this the next time a liberal says Obama created thousands of jobs.


Work force participation rate at the start of each year according to the bureau of labor statistics.

2007 - 66.4 %
2008 - 66.2 %
2009 - 65.7 %
2010 - 64.8 %
2011 - 64.2 %
2012 - 63.7 %
2013 - 63.6 %
2014 - 62.9 %
2015 - 62.9 %
2016 - 62.7 %

And what do you think that means? That in no way counters the fact that jobs have increased every month since February 2010.
As for explanation of declining labor force, here is the percent of the population that does not want a job:
2007 - 31.6%
2008 - 31.7%
2009 - 31.9%
2010 - 32.7%
2011 - 33.1%
2012 - 33.7%
2013 - 33.7%
2014 - 34.5%
2015 - 34.6%
2016 - 34.9%
34.9%

What does that prove?

That the drop in the Labor Force Participation Rate is almost entirely due to fewer people wanting/needing to work.

1) People who once made $80,000 a year can't afford a job with the income of a Walmart or a McDonalds.

That has nothing to do with the participation rate.

2) Obama's job numbers also don't refelect family's who now must work multiple jobs to make up for the large salary they once had

Whose job numbers do? But the data are published....which would you like: the number of people working multiple jobs, the percent of employed people working multiple jobs, families with husband and wife working, families with husband and wife working as a percent of married couples?

3) Obama's job numbers don't consider individuals who must work more than two employers because the company they had chosen only had enough business to sustain their employment for four months.

No one's number consider that. How could they?

That 62% - 63% participation rate shows we were long from the growing economy delusion that liberal democrats want people to believe.

How do you think it shows that?

[qThat is completely laughable if your rebuttals is that nearly HALF of all Americans NOT working (40%) is due to the fact they have chosen not to work due to retirement or school.[ The statistical labor participation average is 63%, let that figure sink in. The economy was a HUGE concern in the last election, there are more Americans working multiple part time jobs to make up for the high paying long term full time career they once had. That in itself has everything to do with the current labor participation rate, which was higher in 2007 than at any time under President Obama. More Americans are having to accept food stamps, under a stagnant economy that had maybe a 2% GDP growth at best, if it reached even that high.

President Obamas liberal policies have generated ten million jobs




.

Remember this the next time a liberal says Obama created thousands of jobs.


Work force participation rate at the start of each year according to the bureau of labor statistics.

2007 - 66.4 %
2008 - 66.2 %
2009 - 65.7 %
2010 - 64.8 %
2011 - 64.2 %
2012 - 63.7 %
2013 - 63.6 %
2014 - 62.9 %
2015 - 62.9 %
2016 - 62.7 %

And what do you think that means? That in no way counters the fact that jobs have increased every month since February 2010.
As for explanation of declining labor force, here is the percent of the population that does not want a job:
2007 - 31.6%
2008 - 31.7%
2009 - 31.9%
2010 - 32.7%
2011 - 33.1%
2012 - 33.7%
2013 - 33.7%
2014 - 34.5%
2015 - 34.6%
2016 - 34.9%
34.9%

What does that prove?

That the drop in the Labor Force Participation Rate is almost entirely due to fewer people wanting/needing to work.

1) People who once made $80,000 a year can't afford a job with the income of a Walmart or a McDonalds.

That has nothing to do with the participation rate.

2) Obama's job numbers also don't refelect family's who now must work multiple jobs to make up for the large salary they once had

Whose job numbers do? But the data are published....which would you like: the number of people working multiple jobs, the percent of employed people working multiple jobs, families with husband and wife working, families with husband and wife working as a percent of married couples?

3) Obama's job numbers don't consider individuals who must work more than two employers because the company they had chosen only had enough business to sustain their employment for four months.

No one's number consider that. How could they?

That 62% - 63% participation rate shows we were long from the growing economy delusion that liberal democrats want people to believe.

How do you think it shows that?

That is completely laughable if your rebuttals is that nearly HALF of all Americans NOT working (40%) is due to the fact they have chosen not to work due to retirement or school.

January 2017, not seasonally adjusted:
Adult civilian noninstitutional population: 254,082,000
Employed: 150,527,000 leaving 103,555,000 not working. Table A-1
89,472,000 did not want a job (or were too disabled to work) Table A-38
8,149,000 were trying to work (Unemployed) and 5,934,000 said they wanted a job but didn't look for work from mid-December to mid-January and 3,585,000 of those hadn't looked for work in all of 2016.

You brought up retired and school...if you look at the age groups in Table A-38, it certainly appears that way.
Looking at Table A-6 we see that about 50 million of those not in the labor force are disabled 64 and older, or both.
If you can do the math in Table A-16 you can see that for age 16-24, there are 8,487,000 high school students not in the labor force, and 5,776,000 full time college students not in the labor force.

Do you have different numbers?

The statistical labor participation average is 63%, let that figure sink in.

January 2017 seasonally adjusted number is 62.8%. Historical average is 62.8% The participation rate peaked in 1999. The decline paused from 2005 to 2007 but the recession accelerated the decline. It now has paused again some.

The economy was a HUGE concern in the last election, there are more Americans working multiple part time jobs to make up for the high paying long term full time career they once had.

Not really. multiple job holders started going up during the recovery as jobs, though not good ones, started coming back. But as a percent of the number of employed, it's been going down.

That in itself has everything to do with the current labor participation rate

How? There's zero connection between the two.

 

[P@triot]

The economy was a HUGE concern in the last election, there are more Americans working multiple part time jobs to make up for the high paying long term full time career they once had.

Not really. multiple job holders started going up during the recovery as jobs, though not good ones, started coming back. But as a percent of the number of employed, it's been going down.

"Not really" - what an idiotic thing to say. The economy was the #1 issue for voters. Why do you people insist on making up your own version of reality?!?

4. Top voting issues in 2016 election

 

[pinqy]

The economy was a HUGE concern in the last election, there are more Americans working multiple part time jobs to make up for the high paying long term full time career they once had.

Not really. multiple job holders started going up during the recovery as jobs, though not good ones, started coming back. But as a percent of the number of employed, it's been going down.

"Not really" - what an idiotic thing to say. The economy was the #1 issue for voters. Why do you people insist on making up your own version of reality?!?

4. Top voting issues in 2016 election

Please reread. I in no way was claiming the economy wasn't an issue. The "not really" was about the multiple job holders.

 

[P@triot]

We have the blueprint for prosperity. We know exactly what works and what doesn't. But it's a matter of having the backbone to tell the parasites we will not allow them to mooch off of society any longer...

"New data in a report from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) paint a clear picture: States with the best policies are being rewarded with an influx of residents, and states with unattractive policies are losing residents."

Why People Are Leaving Blue States in Droves

 

[JoeNormal]

We have the blueprint for prosperity. We know exactly what works and what doesn't. But it's a matter of having the backbone to tell the parasites we will not allow them to mooch off of society any longer...

"New data in a report from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) paint a clear picture: States with the best policies are being rewarded with an influx of residents, and states with unattractive policies are losing residents."

View attachment 116114

Why People Are Leaving Blue States in Droves

Blue states tend to have knowledge industries while red states have extractive industries. If you don't want to have to retrain, move to Texas. You can earn a good living fracking.

 

[P@triot]

We have the blueprint for prosperity. We know exactly what works and what doesn't. But it's a matter of having the backbone to tell the parasites we will not allow them to mooch off of society any longer...

"New data in a report from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) paint a clear picture: States with the best policies are being rewarded with an influx of residents, and states with unattractive policies are losing residents."

View attachment 116114

Why People Are Leaving Blue States in Droves

Blue states tend to have knowledge industries while red states have extractive industries. If you don't want to have to retrain, move to Texas. You can earn a good living fracking.

That's not true. North Carolina is a red state and has endless "knowledge" industries (North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, Cisco, IBM, etc.). In addition, Texas does as well (Texas, Texas A&M, SMU, Baylor, TCU, Dell, etc.).

 

[JoeNormal]

We have the blueprint for prosperity. We know exactly what works and what doesn't. But it's a matter of having the backbone to tell the parasites we will not allow them to mooch off of society any longer...

"New data in a report from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) paint a clear picture: States with the best policies are being rewarded with an influx of residents, and states with unattractive policies are losing residents."

View attachment 116114

Why People Are Leaving Blue States in Droves

Blue states tend to have knowledge industries while red states have extractive industries. If you don't want to have to retrain, move to Texas. You can earn a good living fracking.

That's not true. North Carolina is a red state and has endless "knowledge" industries (North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, Cisco, IBM, etc.). In addition, Texas does as well (Texas, Texas A&M, SMU, Baylor, TCU, Dell, etc.).

 

[JoeNormal]

We have the blueprint for prosperity. We know exactly what works and what doesn't. But it's a matter of having the backbone to tell the parasites we will not allow them to mooch off of society any longer...

"New data in a report from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) paint a clear picture: States with the best policies are being rewarded with an influx of residents, and states with unattractive policies are losing residents."

View attachment 116114

Why People Are Leaving Blue States in Droves

Blue states tend to have knowledge industries while red states have extractive industries. If you don't want to have to retrain, move to Texas. You can earn a good living fracking.

That's not true. North Carolina is a red state and has endless "knowledge" industries (North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, Cisco, IBM, etc.). In addition, Texas does as well (Texas, Texas A&M, SMU, Baylor, TCU, Dell, etc.).

I don't think there's a state in the nation that doesn't have at least a few universities but it's not what those states are mostly known for. For as long as I can remember, Texas has been associated with oil like West Virginia is associated with coal.

 

[P@triot]

We have the blueprint for prosperity. We know exactly what works and what doesn't. But it's a matter of having the backbone to tell the parasites we will not allow them to mooch off of society any longer...

"New data in a report from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) paint a clear picture: States with the best policies are being rewarded with an influx of residents, and states with unattractive policies are losing residents."

View attachment 116114

Why People Are Leaving Blue States in Droves

Blue states tend to have knowledge industries while red states have extractive industries. If you don't want to have to retrain, move to Texas. You can earn a good living fracking.

That's not true. North Carolina is a red state and has endless "knowledge" industries (North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, Cisco, IBM, etc.). In addition, Texas does as well (Texas, Texas A&M, SMU, Baylor, TCU, Dell, etc.).

I don't think there's a state in the nation that doesn't have at least a few universities but it's not what those states are mostly known for. For as long as I can remember, Texas has been associated with oil like West Virginia is associated with coal.

Just because they have a stigma attached to them based on a reputation from the earl 1900's doesn't make your statement true. Yes - Texas was a big oil state for a long time. But guess what - they don't ride horses to work down there and they don't wear 10 gallon cowboy hats either. Texas has WAY more universities than New York has ever had. And Dell (#3 in market share for computers) has their headquarters in Texas. It's 2017, not 1917.

 

[JoeNormal]

We have the blueprint for prosperity. We know exactly what works and what doesn't. But it's a matter of having the backbone to tell the parasites we will not allow them to mooch off of society any longer...

"New data in a report from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) paint a clear picture: States with the best policies are being rewarded with an influx of residents, and states with unattractive policies are losing residents."

View attachment 116114

Why People Are Leaving Blue States in Droves

Blue states tend to have knowledge industries while red states have extractive industries. If you don't want to have to retrain, move to Texas. You can earn a good living fracking.

That's not true. North Carolina is a red state and has endless "knowledge" industries (North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, Cisco, IBM, etc.). In addition, Texas does as well (Texas, Texas A&M, SMU, Baylor, TCU, Dell, etc.).

I don't think there's a state in the nation that doesn't have at least a few universities but it's not what those states are mostly known for. For as long as I can remember, Texas has been associated with oil like West Virginia is associated with coal.

Just because they have a stigma attached to them based on a reputation from the earl 1900's doesn't make your statement true. Yes - Texas was a big oil state for a long time. But guess what - they don't ride horses to work down there and they don't wear 10 gallon cowboy hats either. Texas has WAY more universities than New York has ever had. And Dell (#3 in market share for computers) has their headquarters in Texas. It's 2017, not 1917.

Yeah, and they have Texas Instruments too. Doesn't change the fact that they have way more blue collar than white. To each his own but I inherited some property there that I was so disinterested in that I let the state have it back rather than continuing to pay taxes and maintenance fees on it.