258
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by MdRuckus@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
(page 6) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] atempuser23@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So reading through this is a bit surprising. I hadn't been paying as much attention to some of these state based issues. It looks like the argument of the article is that despite strong historic economic numbers some of the recent steps taken by states have created challenges for businesses.

It seems that the knock down effect of reproductive health laws in a restriction in the number of practicing doctors per state. So it is not exactly the law that is the issue, but the fact that the ratio of doctors to patients is going in an adverse direction. The article is arguing that the extent is enough to create challenges for citizens in Texas. That seems like a sound premise, basically its harder to get and see a doctor because fewer doctors are moving to Texas compared to the growing population.

It seems that the states that were less of economic powerhouses to begin with could have negative effects with less strict laws since they didn't start from as strong a position.

The rest of it seems to be based on how accessible child care and health insurance are. If you want families and not just labor those resources can greatly reduce the need for high wages.

I'd briefly seen the big fails, like the Texas power grid and the bans on investment funds taking climate change into account. There was also that thing where Florida decide it was time to kill Disney.

Not moving the office buildings to Florida was a MUCH bigger deal to Disney that it appeared. The cost of 1-2 billion was going to be offset by MUCH lower cost of living for employees,(less pay as well) favorable taxes an the sale of super valuable real estate in California. It was very likely structured to be a net positive for the company. So I think that this is basically the core of the article. Even what should be on paper good deals are now in questions because of the state policies.

load more comments (2 replies)

Flop Florida and Tennessee, and bump Mississippi to the top. Florida is way worse than Tennessee, so glad I left the one for the other. Still need to find somewhere better long term though.

[-] Scrotal_Sophistry@lemmy.fmhy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If you want to stay on the east, New England, New Jersey, DC, Virginia(Virginia's the weakest of these options). West coast: Cali, PNW, Colorado. Michigan gets an honorable mention due to the whirlwind of progressive legislation they've been passing lately. Along with the more favorable weather they will have long term as climate change destroys the rest of the country. Illinois is apparently pretty ok too but I don't know much about the state. Source: I'm looking to GTFO of Florida next year and have been reading up on these states for a few months now

E: here's a tool that helped me get started with my research

Have to stay in Eastern time zone. Initially I was looking at NC, but that has gone downhill lately. My kid wants us to look at Vermont or Maine, but I'm leaning towards Virginia. We tend to avoid large cities, so NJ and DC are out.

[-] Scrotal_Sophistry@lemmy.fmhy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

Vermont's gonna be a rough one to move to, they have one of the worst housing shortages in the country atm. Maine might be a good pick, you may want to check out Connecticut too, that's the one I'm leaning more towards. The towns are small, but close to one another so you get the benefits of a city with a more small town feel. Cost of living is reasonable, schools are good, pretty progressive govt. It checks a lot of my boxes and I get the feeling it might do the same for you.

[-] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

This title is misleading. Inclusiveness was the predominant negative. I'm sorry but that's not going to be everyone's biggest concern. Example, of new parents are looking for the best place to raise their kids they are (and should) prioritize childcare. Now double check that list, what states had childcare as a pro...

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] KnumbKnuts@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Ridiculous study. Nothing about climate, taxes, real estate, schools, natural amenities.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] fidelacchius@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Ahh yes a scientific unbiased source. Very nice.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago

And why should I give a singular fuck about cnbc's list of personal preferences?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
258 points (92.4% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2016 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS