The number one state in the Union for business is Texas, according to CNBC, which ranked all the states according to the following criterion-
cost of doing business, workforce, economy, education, quality of life, technology and innovation, transportation, cost of living, business friendliness, and access to capital.
Governor Rick Perry credits "low taxes, reasonable and predictable regulations, and a skilled workforce" with Texas's success.
Last year, Texas ranked number two, behind Virginia. This year, the two states have traded places. But the most surprising thing about the top ten states in the list?
Massachusetts is number five, and Minnesota is number eight. I'm guessing it must have something to do with availability of capital and tax incentives, along with a skilled workforce. I wouldn't count on any of that lasting long. Here's the complete list-
* Texas
* Virginia
* Colorado
* North Carolina
* Massachusetts
* Iowa
* South Dakota
* Minnesota
* Utah
* Georgia
UPDATE-I just got a comment from Quimbob, who provided a link to a different survey which relates a slightly different survey which, while still ranking Texas number one, ranks North Carolina, not Virginia, at number two behind Texas and, more importantly in contrast to the CNBC survey, puts Massachusetts in the bottom five. I tend to believe this survey over CNBC.
It also goes into some striking detail regarding the problems in California, which according to one respondent is so bad that, according to him, if they could grow their crops in Reno, they'd move their plants there tomorrow. He goes on to say that businesses have completely opted out of doing business with Sacramento, so bad is the anti-business environment there. And of course, when they leave, the jobs go with them.
This serves to verify my feelings that, before long, California will be the American Greece. Actually, it already is. It just hasn't gotten around to asking for a bail-out. Give it time, because as I said before, California will be considered "too big to fail".
This also goes a long way towards explaining Scott Brown's recent vote in favor of the Financial Reform bill. If California is the American Greece, Massachusetts is probably in line to be the American Portugal. Brown's vote makes sense in the context of laying the groundwork for federal aid, and even if the GOP takes over both houses of Congress in 2010 (unlikely as far as the Senate goes), the infrastructure will be in place, and the onus will be on the new Republican House and possibly Senate majorities to accede or deny to any such aid. Such a scenario is unlikely before this November, but between then and November 2012, it becomes a near probability, and will provide the Democrats a hammer with which to hit Republicans. And it might well work, as the majority of people in dire straights by that time will be, shall we say, not looking at the long term, but living in the moment.
In the meantime, I have to wonder how Massachusetts could end up in such wildly different positions in two different polls. Bear in mind that CNBC is a sister network to NBC and MSNBC, and they might have a reason to paint Massachusetts in a more flattering light than what it really deserves. I was so stunned by the first poll it was hard to let it pass without comment. Consider the "Big Dig" which lasted for years longer than anticipated at staggeringly high cost overruns. It is a state where bureaucracy and inefficiency is the normal cost of doing business, where labor unions are a malignant influence, and state regulations are on the one hand a drain and an obstacle, and at the same time a cash cow for crooked regulators and for contractors looking for kick-backs.
If you really want to know why the business community is holding onto 1.4 trillion dollars of assets, and why many others want to outsource production to more friendly business climates, look no further than the current state of affairs, and try to understand that its probably only going to get worse-much worse-because of it.
And the liberals still don't get it. They never will understand that the business community is under no obligation to invest their money-and the operative term is THEIR MONEY-in what they can't help but see as a losing proposition, one that if they play along with, will only result in even more massive business failures down the line.
Government make-work is not the answer. That is just temporary relief for a relative few, at best. At worse, it just adds to the tax burden. Nor can the private business sector be expected to invest their money in what would amount to a charitable enterprise that would leave their companies in danger of collapse.
There has to be a better way, but it will require some more pain, and more sacrifice, before people get it.
