This looks like a pretty shaky platform for Willard to use as an element of his run to the White House. As the excellent CommonWealth magazine reports in a piece by Robert Sullivan:
After ranking 13th in growth of gross domestic product (GDP) over the period from 1997 through 2004, Massachusetts came in a lowly 42nd the following year, behind every northeastern state except Maine. We now account for 2.62 percent of the aggregate for all state GDPs. That’s down from our peak during the past four decades-2.98 percent in 1988-but still better than the 2.46 percent at the state’s low point, in 1979. In that year, manufacturing was by far the biggest sector in our economy, at 25.6 percent of GDP. (It was at 22.7 percent nationally.) Now it’s down to 10.1 percent (versus 12.1 percent nationally), having been passed by finance and insurance, trade, professional services, and our new economic Bigfoot, “real estate, rental, and leasing,” as it’s described by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Property-based transactions accounted for 14.6 percent of our GDP, according to the latest figures, which makes us the seventh most dependent on the real estate sector. (Florida is in the lead, and New Hampshire ranks sixth.)
Real estate is our new economic Bigfoot. But given the volatility of real estate, our future may lie more in the field of “professional and technical services,” which accounts for 10.8 percent of our GDP; the national figure is 7.0 percent, and only Virginia is ahead of us on this score. The Bay State also logged one of the biggest growth rates in this sector in 2005. In contrast, we were one of only six states to see a decline in wealth attributable to the finance-and-insurance sector. And despite our reputation for big government, we now rank 49th in the share of GDP generated by the public sector (8.9 percent), above only Delaware.
So what did Romney do wrong that caused the real estate bubble to burst? What else did he do or not do that caused a low rate of GDP growth?
<
p>
Do you think Patrick’s idea of new taxes on businesses will help?
<
p>
Personally I think if you want to raise taxes, raise them on everyone. Have some courage don’t just sluff off tax increases on easy targets like business and “the rich”.
Populism about how hard it is to be rich just don’t fly…
<
p>
Real estate has been bubblicious nationwide. It’s a nationwide ranking. So, the bubble doesn’t fly as an excuse.
42nd in the nation is not a very strong platform from which to mount a national campaign. It’s hard to say: “Vote for me! Sink to 42/50!”
circa 1990?
How about Texas in 1998, while we are at it.
South Carolina is one of the very few states where Democrats lost ground in the 2006 election. South Carolina is third in the nation in unemployment behind Mississippi and Michigan. The automobile industry’s problems explain Michigan. I wonder if it is Republican governance that explains South Carolina’s woes.
<
p>
What do you think?
You want to cherry pick one data point: “oooo…look Mass is at 4.6% unemployment and SC is at 6.6%. SC is such a bad place because of Republicans.”
<
p>
There’s more people in the Mass unemployment line than in SC.
<
p>
SC is a state that’s built on agriculture and textiles, sectors both of which face stiff foreign competition. Shift away from those sectors is tough, causes much dislocation, much the same as the shift away from manufacturing in Massachusetts is difficult.
<
p>
But, you can still buy a house in a nice neighborhood in Columbia or Charleston for under $200K, even less in the rural towns and counties, go to college for under $10K per year, and go to the beach as early as March. Try doing that in Massachusetts.
<
p>
It’s supposed to be 70 degrees in Charleston on Tuesday. Just saying.
why South Carolina did not broaden its economic base? I’m sure tax and investment policy had nothing whatever to do with it.
<
p>
And yes, I’m choosing one data point. I’m tired of my home state being the data point. I want a different data point.
<
p>
The same reason Massachusetts didn’t broaden its economic base maybe? It’s not just a matter of snapping your finger, or saying “together we can”.
<
p>
The entire NE region is lagging all other region in the US. Why doesn’t New England broaden its economic base? Maybe faerydust would help do that quickly. Otherwise, how? It’s a slow process.
<
p>
Want another data point: In this thread we know that in GDP growth rate, mass dropped from 13th to 42nd. Meanwhile, from the same data we know that SC moved from 37th to 20. Must have been that Republican administration responsible for that growth, no?
SC nonfarm payroll was up Dec to Dec, 1.7% while Massachusetts was up .6%.
<
p>
Who in SC should get the credit? The Republican administration and its policies?
What does that even mean? Real estate is our hoax? It’s our furry animal living in the woods that doesn’t exist? Step away from the metaphor…
<
p>
What a stupid article. Summary: Here’s some data. Massachuetts did really well up to 2004 and 2005 sucks.
<
p>
BMG analysis of the article: excellent article. Romney sucks.
<
p>
Look into the detail. If not for a significant drop in Wholesale trade and Finance/insurace, Massachusetts would have ranked significantly higher in growth rate. Wonder what caused that? A “very excellent” Commonwealth Magazine might have ask, and even attempted to answer questions like that, rather than publishing the paper equivalent of posting a link, and posting ECONOMIC BIGFOOT in big font.
http://www.pwcmoneyt…
<
p>
Biotechnology companies followed by software companies receive the most investment. So to say we don’t have an attractive climate for investors is hogwash. At least from a small-business perspective, many innovative companies are still receiving cash to fuel their growth and job growth.