[vter]

I'm a native Vermonter that loves Burlington. I know I'm not alone . I love it to visit, shop, do my errands etc. But to live? No. I'll take my small town over Burlington any day.

[Oriz]

I think every place needs a little Burlington. While here it seems some people consider Burlington the devil, for others that are used to actual real big cities, Burlington is a cute little mini versions of those. It allows you to go and do your shopping and find the stores you wouldn't find everywhere, still in a relatively small town feel. And then it allows you within a short drive to go back to your small town. I would never want to live in Burlington either. As a matter of fact, ALOT of people who work in Burlington live elsewhere. Alot of people that visit or shop in Burlington live elsewhere. One Burlington is alright but I don't think most people would want the whole state to turn into Burlington.

[mdovell]

I mean there has to be a balance in order to bring jobs to the area. Montpelier is nice too don't get me wrong but it is quite small. Jobs bring a better tax base by which that you can fund more in services.

[OhBeeHave]

Originally Posted by mdovell

I mean there has to be a balance in order to bring jobs to the area. Montpelier is nice too don't get me wrong but it is quite small. Jobs bring a better tax base by which that you can fund more in services.

I don't believe anyone disputes that, but what is the state doing to lure mid-to-large corporations and the good paying jobs they would bring, to Vermont?

[cgregor]

The state, in my opinion, shouldn't. We should be luring entrepreneurs who want a healthy, well-run and safe place to raise their families, a tax system that encourages start-ups to hang in there for the first five, toughest, years, and affordable, accessible and tax-supported health care that frees them from worry of financial ruin in the case of ill health.

We should also be training employees how to rescue themselves when Wall Street decides to treat their employer like another piece on the checkerboard-- to organize themselves to continue running the business with protection from the state against the intended depredations.

I especially favor this latter because Wall Street not only ruined Springfield (formerly known as "Precision Valley," the town with 3,000 employees in the machine shops supplied one-third of all machine tools in the US prior to WWII and is now a husk), but needs to be prevented from doing the same to other Vermont towns. If you read Hedrick Smith's book, Who Stole the American Dream?, you will get a glimpse of Springfield in his stories about other businesses sucked out of other American towns.

The history of business has always been to find the cheapest labor possible-- look at how many techs and quants are underpaid in Silicon Valley-- move there after sucking as much bribe money as possible from the town government, and then bailing out before payback is due. Textron took Springfield's optical comparator business to low-wage South Carolina, employed the cheapest people it could find and bankrupted the business in two years. Oh, well; it was just another one of their playing chips.

[OhBeeHave]

Originally Posted by cgregor

The state, in my opinion, shouldn't. We should be luring entrepreneurs who want a healthy, well-run and safe place to raise their families, a tax system that encourages start-ups to hang in there for the first five, toughest, years, and affordable, accessible and tax-supported health care that frees them from worry of financial ruin in the case of ill health.

We should also be training employees how to rescue themselves when Wall Street decides to treat their employer like another piece on the checkerboard-- to organize themselves to continue running the business with protection from the state against the intended depredations.

I especially favor this latter because Wall Street not only ruined Springfield (formerly known as "Precision Valley," the town with 3,000 employees in the machine shops supplied one-third of all machine tools in the US prior to WWII and is now a husk), but needs to be prevented from doing the same to other Vermont towns. If you read Hedrick Smith's book, Who Stole the American Dream?, you will get a glimpse of Springfield in his stories about other businesses sucked out of other American towns.

The history of business has always been to find the cheapest labor possible-- look at how many techs and quants are underpaid in Silicon Valley-- move there after sucking as much bribe money as possible from the town government, and then bailing out before payback is due. Textron took Springfield's optical comparator business to low-wage South Carolina, employed the cheapest people it could find and bankrupted the business in two years. Oh, well; it was just another one of their playing chips.

My question would be, "Who is we?"

The residents of the state? If so, isn't that 'we' responsible for influencing the laws through the elected officials, and wouldn't that ultimately be the state?

[mdovell]

"The history of business has always been to find the cheapest labor possible"

Half true. The history of business followed much of colonalization which usually happened to be places that were cheaper that were not as developed. Hudson Bay company pretty much was the founder of Canada. British East India company pretty much led the then US colonies.

Having said this though you have to understand the administration also meant that colonies were still under specific contract laws. Without contract laws there is no business...period. What prevents IBM from moving to Haiti or Verizon from moving to Somalia? Not really but they won't because there is a lack of contract laws.

"We should be luring entrepreneurs who want a healthy, well-run and safe place to raise their families, a tax system that encourages start-ups to hang in there for the first five, toughest, years, and affordable, accessible and tax-supported health care that frees them from worry of financial ruin in the case of ill health."

I get that to a point but much of the time that's simply putting the cart before the horse. The delivery of goods and services frankly is easier when there are more people to justify it. Adding to these issues is on a state basis state governments control licensing. Let's be honest here there are some places that cannot compete with others. Boston for example is always going to have more then Providence. So with that being the case why not just accept Mass licenses (doctors, lawyers,dentists, teachers) in RI? Why can't VT just take licenses from NH,MA and NY or make some regional licensing agreement? Who wants to become a teacher in Wyoming? Ok but if Wyoming, Montana, North and South Dakota made agreements then it would be more compelling.

I personally know a lawyer that would love to move his practice from the Boston Area to Providence. But he won't..why? Because how many lawyers want to take a bar examine again after being in practice for 20+ years? Certainly there will be those that say they want to control their own standards and that's fine but that simply makes it harder to attract more people to enter in.

The reason why businesses want various agreements is because of the political structures of local and state governments. I know of two local governments one in Maine in one in Mass where the head leadership was recalled and then the legislative bodies were then recalled by the public because they liked their town manager/administrator. Meanwhile their financial departments go though four or so managers in two years. If we want businesses out of politics then there has to be more continuity to ensure operations. Once a place shows drama it can be a turnoff to businesses.

It *is* possible to lower wages without having to outright leave.
Nuclea Biotechnologies in Pittsfield hopes to relocate manufacturing to old GE site from Cambridge | masslive.com
"But it's expensive to manufacture in Cambridge, Muraca said. In Pittsfield, he pays $12 a square foot per month for space; in Cambridge, it's more than $60.

"Also, the cost of living is much lower," Muraca said. "You get much more bang for your buck. If an employee wants to buy a house or start a family, it's possible (in Pittsfield)."

That's a pretty huge difference. $12 a month vs $60.

Pittsfield's Nuclea Biotechnologies to expand, create 25 jobs with state tax incentive | masslive.com
"To get the incentive, Nuclea has to create the jobs in 2014 and maintain them for at least five years. There is a claw-back provision allowing the state to collect taxes if recipients like Nuclea don't come through, according to the Massachusetts Life Sciences Center."

So how much are they
Nuclea Biotechnologies, a developer and maker of diagnostic tests for cancer and diabetes, has received a $510,000 state tax incentive to develop more manufacturing in Pittsfield and create 25 jobs.

“We’re exited about that it really gives us a boost,” said Patrick J. Muraca, president and chief executive officer and co-founder of Nuclea.

The jobs, he said, will involve making a new technology related to his company's diagnostic tests. The jobs will begin at $50,000 or more a year. Muraca credited state Sen. Benjamin Downing, D-Springfield, for his help with the incentive."

Do the math here. The state gave that tax incentive which lasts for five years to create 25 jobs. 50k of 25 people at just one year is 1.25 million and that's just for the first year. This is easily worth it for the state.

At the same point the Yankee plant is closing. Now I know it has issues and I won't argue against that. At the same point how many employers employ 550 people with a average wage of $105,000? Southern VT and to a point south west NH and Franklin county Ma are going to get hit pretty bad. The latest UMass study shows that this is a loss of actually about 1200 jobs to the region because they were so high paying.

[BS Walks]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

I'm kind of wondering how the heck a "new immigrant (particularly a non-white)" would end up in Vermont in the first place? ...and then complain about cold winters. lol

One of the same ways that anyone else would "end up" in Vermont? Why would a new immigrant be different than anyone else. Sounds like you're playing out one of his/her points.

[Oriz]

Originally Posted by BS Walks

One of the same ways that anyone else would "end up" in Vermont? Why would a new immigrant be different than anyone else. Sounds like you're playing out one of his/her points.

As a new immigrant myself who "ended up" in Vermont(although technically I would be considered white), I can see their point, so I'm not offended. If you have not done your research before moving somewhere...don't complain...

[BS Walks]

Originally Posted by Oriz

As a new immigrant myself who "ended up" in Vermont(although technically I would be considered white), I can see their point, so I'm not offended. If you have not done your research before moving somewhere...don't complain...

My post wasn't about your being offended or not offended. People don't have a right to not be offended. That said, regional bias or jingoistic tendencies in a given area do exist. Your comment about not complaining without having done "research" is a red herring. There are many aspects about a place that just cannot be experienced until spending a good chunk of time there, and people certainly do have every right to express their sentiments about the experience and complain, if they so choose.