Free: “Some so-called conservatives may take that stand, I on the otherhand think that incentives should be based in merit.”

They already are. Nobody gives incentives to something that has no merit. Duh.

“In fact, if a business is to get land or a 5 year exemption on taxes, they should have to sign a contract that says they will employ X number of people for Y number of man-hours per year during that 5 year period.”

Again, you come out for socialism in business. You claim to be into free market economics, then you say something like this. I say again, communities bring in business to increase employment and to increase their tax base. If a business isn’t going to “pay its way” in the govt view, no incentives are offered. Once again, duh! This is basic econ, Free.
The focus in our economic system is the individual investor/consumer, not the govt sector. Don’t you know that?

Worker’s will go (or stay) where the wages are. But if all we do is invite companies in that pay $7.00/hr jobs, we will be left with a population of service workers that end up leaching off the system because they can’t make ends meet.

Our goal should be to attract high-skilled jobs to the state.

Our goal should be to attract jobs that will boost the tax base instead of be a strain on it.

Our goal should be to create an envirment that allows North Dakotans to stay in the state if they want to.

We can’t force anyone to stay, but if someone wants to stay, there should be work for them. If that means adopting a North Dakota first policy, that’s what we must do.

We are constantly hearing about how if you go to, say Seatle, a North Dakotan can get a job based on the perception of our work ethic.

Great! Let’s get that in the state now.

I’ve worked construction for Northern Improvement and other contractors, and the vast majority of the workers are from out of state. It’s almost a parallel of the illegal immigrant problem.

Why is it that our state seems to have a policy that says “We need to attract talent to compensate for the talent that wants to leave the state. If people want to leave, they will. We cannot force them to stay. We should encourage people to come to North Dakota, not force people to stay.”

At some point, the goal went from keeping our young people here to “forget our own young people, let’s just bring other people into the state.”

What’s wrong with our people? Why should we spend effort bringing new people in when there are people who want to stay but can’t?

It is in North Dakota’s best interest to retain it’s native population because otherwise the “world renouned” work ethic may disappear if half the people in the state aren’t North Dakotan.

Low wages making people leave N. Dakota? Nah! That can’t be. With the oil boom in ND,the budget surplus, plus the economy on the national level doing great something is wrong with these people. They must hate America. I bet they are all left wing nuts. Plus Rob called for the aid to the farmers to be cut…… Hmmm….I wonder.

I did not comment in this thread.
Only replied to a gratuitous slur.

nearly to stupid to be allowed to live

Besides, this giving of “incentives” for business to locate in a particular community or state is usually a matter of removing disincentives that were put there by a previous govt. Reduction of excessive taxation or regulation is usually involved. Business pays the way for everyone else in this economy, never forget that. Govt only has what it takes away from the successful citizens. Doing business is the source of all wealth in our economy.

A contract:

free scholarship for those sectors which ND is trying to attact people to the must provided they commit to working ~5 years within the state, else they’d have to pay all of it or a graduated portion back, depending on how long they actually stay (my state does it with nurses and teachers). could be marketed within the state (to keep the highly educated youth in) and as well as outside the state in those areas from which ND think it ca attract the most, can be couple with advertising the beatys of the state.

The proffession can be determined in an stratigic partership/association betweeen the biz community and the state.

“The giving of incentives itself is socialistic interference in the economy.No, it’s not. Socialism is the govt controlling the way the business is run, by demanding what you recommend. Don’t you know the difference?

You want Government to choose winners and losers instead of the free market. That my friend, is SOCIALISM.

A Big Box store should pay the same taxes as the hometown store.

You want to give the Big Box store, with no ties to the community a reason to come to town. I want that new company to earn it’s FREE RIDE by employing X number of people FROM THE COMMUNITY.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BOOSTING THE TAX BASE IS WRONG.

Economic development is to create jobs, not tax revenue.

“The Mom and Pop store has been charging higher prices and has been having a limited supply and variety of product for 40 years, and you want to reward this?”

I believe in loyalty. If a company has stuck around and served a community well it should not be thrown under the bus for any reason.

Free: Once again, you show your basic ignorance of economic principles.

“If Economic Development results in bigger government, then we need to try something else.

More prosperity, more demand for services, and usually a larger population; therefore, more demand for govt services, and bigger govt. Duh.

If the Economy is growing, there should be less need for the government.”

See above comment. Duh again.

Free, I’m wondering if you even bothered to read the entire column.

What part? Do I think the problem will take care of itself? Not really, I only see it getting worse.

Mr. Free Repub.

You have too much time on your hands…

rob: a well written article. I think there are some things government can do…but this one is turning the corner I believe.

This has caused workers (especially young workers) to seek higher wages elsewhere. Eventually, though, as North Dakota’s excess workers are siphoned off though outmigration the labor pool will again shrink and wages will go higher, attracting more workers to stay

WE is all dead in the long run..

It’s not just wages, it’s prices and the living conditions, and the tax structure.

Free: You claim to have studied free market economics, then illustrate massive ignorance in that area. Your latest stuff just illustrates that ignorance.

“You want Government to choose winners and losers instead of the free market. That my friend, is SOCIALISM.No, I want govt to do its job, which is to act in the interest of its citizens. If a local govt wants to increase its prosperity, and thereby increase the quality of life for its citizens by cutting back disincentives to attract business, that is one of its legitimate functions. It is in no way any sort of socialism.

A Big Box store should pay the same taxes as the hometown store.Again, you show your ignorance of basic econ. Big businesses always pay more total taxes, even if they pay a lower tax rate. If the community took a net loss, they wouldn’t do it in the first place. Duh.

You want to give the Big Box store, with no ties to the community a reason to come to town. I want that new company to earn it’s FREE RIDE by employing X number of people FROM THE COMMUNITY.Incentives aren’t a free ride, and there is a net gain to the community. What you propose is socialist control of business, and that is wrong, since we are not a socialist country. All your thinking here, whether you know it or not, is based on the Marxist meme that capital and labor are antagonistic. In our system, they cooperate to produce prosperity, which is why we are rich and socialist countries are stagnant. Duh.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BOOSTING THE TAX BASE IS WRONG.Economic development is for the purpose of producing wealth. Period. What happens to that wealth is up to the social structure. In socialism, the economic system is subservient to the social system. For us, they cooperate to produce more for all. Duh.

Economic development is to create jobs, not tax revenue.See above.

You seem to know nothing about free enterprise economics, Free.

Again, you show your ignorance of basic econ. Big businesses always pay more total taxes, even if they pay a lower tax rate.

I don’t care about total taxes. I’m a flat tax advocate, percentages are what I advocate.

NIce try. The govt isn’t giving anything to business. You have distorted the discussion. This is about removing disincentives to business in a certain area, unless you believe that govt is entitled to obstruct the doing of business. Removing disincentives isn’t giving away anything.

The government operates the way Reagan said:

If it moves, tax it;
if it keeps moving, tax it some more;
if it stops moving, subsidize it.

Government and the Free Market are antognistic by definition.

As such, the government should not give preference to one company because it creates more revenue for the government.

By, for, and of the people. Right?

The government’s involvement in the Economic Development should be FOR The People; not for the government.

Free: “But when the government gives to a business what was once someone else’s property – that business is recieving stolen goods.”

NIce try. The govt isn’t giving anything to business. You have distorted the discussion. This is about removing disincentives to business in a certain area, unless you believe that govt is entitled to obstruct the doing of business. Removing disincentives isn’t giving away anything.

On reflection, the patent and trademark argument is interesting. In exchange for no taxation at all, I would give up any patent and trademark protection. I might take that deal, if government would keep its side of the bargain in perpetuity, which is very unlikely. You see, govt is fundamentally dishonest, being a parasite and all. I can keep my own proprietary secrets; Coca-Cola has not patent or trademark protection for its formula, btw.

Well, whatever.

I maintain that Economic Development should be for the betterment of the people it serves, not a way for it to boost the amount of taxes it can raise and spend.

If Economic Development results in bigger government, then we need to try something else.

If the Economy is growing, there should be less need for the government.

Some govt is necessary; how much is up to us, and if we don’t participate in the process, we get the govt we get, and have no place to whine about it.

Back to this huh?

The last time we came to this point I was told that the idea “government is a necessary evil” I recall I was told that was a naive and unworkable paradigm.

Govt’s incentive is to expand its reach and collect more taxes.

Government only does what we allow it to do. If it grows, it is because we accept its policies.

Our incentive should be to hold govt responsible for every penny it spends, in terms of cost/benefit.

Our incentive is to keep our money thereby depriving government from using our own money to reduce our liberties.

Expanding the tax base isn’t evil, if the community benefits more from it than they pay in taxes, a lot more. It’s simple, but it seems over your head.

Now that’s a Leftist statement. That’s the rationale they use to “tax the rich.”

Some govt is necessary; how much is up to us, and if we don’t participate in the process, we get the govt we get, and have no place to whine about it.

That’s why we must not accept it’s infringing on our liberties.

Free: I know you don’t understand this, but here goes anyway. Govt’s incentive is to expand its reach and collect more taxes. Our incentive should be to hold govt responsible for every penny it spends, in terms of cost/benefit. Expanding the tax base isn’t evil, if the community benefits more from it than they pay in taxes, a lot more. It’s simple, but it seems over your head. Some govt is necessary; how much is up to us, and if we don’t participate in the process, we get the govt we get, and have no place to whine about it.

Free, now you’re in bed with Grover Norquist, that bloodsucking money launderer. You’ve been reading too much crap from the Americans for Tax Reform. Don’t you have any ideas that you don’t rip off?

The confusion here is between total taxes and tax rates. Cutting tax rates increases total tax revenue. In other words, a tax rate cut results in an increase in total taxes collected. Get it?

As far as the canard that a “minimum wage” should be at a level that a person can sustain a living, that is just nonsense. Wages are determined by the value of the work, and nothing else. It is up to the person to become valuable enough in the workplace to sustain a living. BTW, who determines what “a living” is? Isn’t that idea just more socialism?

The confusion here is between total taxes and tax rates. Cutting tax rates increases total tax revenue. In other words, a tax rate cut results in an increase in total taxes collected. Get it?

Yes, I know.

As far as the canard that a “minimum wage” should be at a level that a person can sustain a living, that is just nonsense. Wages are determined by the value of the work, and nothing else. It is up to the person to become valuable enough in the workplace to sustain a living. BTW, who determines what “a living” is? Isn’t that idea just more socialism?

Yes, I know.

I have always said that the Min Wage is a negative force, but we are stuck with it, so it should mean something.

Free, now you’re in bed with Grover Norquist, that bloodsucking money launderer. You’ve been reading too much crap from the Americans for Tax Reform. Don’t you have any ideas that you don’t rip off?

I just can’t win.

What’s wrong with ATR anyways? They are a little overzealous, but that’s how you get ahead in this business.

Only replied to a gratuitous slur.

You are as consistently anti-business as any communist the world has ever seen. Nothing gratuitous about using you as an example uslessness, everyone here knows who you are and everyone but you knows you are useless. If there’s a better example of uselessness I sure don’t know who it would be. Of course you could prove me wrong by at least appearing to have some redeeming value just once. Go ahead, try…

you and WOOF are useless

Can’t I at least be an example of wrong headed ignorance, like you?

P: “Once again, we the people, according to R108 are here to serve businessAs usual, you lie when you try to put words in my mouth. Business gets all is receives from serving the needs of the people. Are you really so ignorant that you don’t know that? Only govt can reach into your pocket and take your money. Business has to give you something you want in exchange. and they get what they need because they are businesses.They get what they need because they give something equally valuable in return. Duh.

If a business needs free land and infrastructure to get going, then it is not a viable business.Agreed. Where did the govt get this “free land”? They confiscated it from a private owner. Duh. They stole it in the first place, and if they offer it as an incentive to business, they are doing something good with it. They should not steal it in the first place. If it can’t afford to pay it’s way like other businesses do, they it is not a viable business. Why should other taxpayers pick up the slack because a business can’t make it on its own.This is a myth. Taxpayers get their money back and more from a successful business. They get tax revenue from the business, from all the workers who earn money and buy things, and from the general overall increase in wealth as a result of having the business there. The govt is a parasite; it needs a host to survive, and if it doesn’t get it from business, it takes it from the citizens who are already there. Govt isn’t entitled to anything, it depends on our productivity. Duh.

Businesses aren’t entitle to anything. They should make it on their own. If they don’t want to pay corporate taxes then they shouldn’t get the protection of the government when it comes to patent and trademarks and a host of other benefits it receives.”Once again, you have it backwards. The govt gets more than it gives in protecting patents and trademarks. It prevents stealing of tax-producing products by the less productive and less inventive. Duh.

Every tax dollar that is taken out of the economy is a dollar that cannot grow the economy or be used to pay employees.

Which is why I advocate tax cuts. That tax cuts can sometimes increase tax revenues is just a side benefit.

Your anti-government rants are so silly. Being conservative is one thing. Being an anti-government dingaling who still somehow manages to support the minimum wage is just plain stupid.

Nodak: Thanks for the kind words. And welcome to SA. I always like to see new ND readers.

As I pointed out in the article, outmigration is simply the natural result of advancements in the ag industry making it so that fewer workers are needed. People like Free (who tend to feel more than they think) don’t understand that all jobs are good jobs, from a market perspective. There’s a reason we call it the job market. It operates on a supply and demand principle, and when you increae the demand for labor (any type of labor) wages go up. Period.

Free lives in a fantasy land where we can utilize government to manufacture jobs. I think the only thing we should expect the government to do is work to be as business-friendly as possible.