Texas Forever (Amanda Marcotte & Joshua Trevino)

[Bloggingheads]

[chiwhisoxx]

a Friday Night Lights reference in the title automatically makes this an awesome diavlog, regardless of actual content

[Hume's Bastard]

I'm ~40 minutes through, and I'm disappointed. Granted I spent a little - really brief - amount of time in West Texas stationed at Goodfellow AFB, and spent a weekend in Austin and Mexico - got the tattoos to prove it. Teasing Texans about their gait and their drawl is not how I see Perry going down. What I hear, Texas' "growth" is piss-poor, service-sector, anti-labor growth and Perry doesn't deserve credit for it.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Hume's Bastard

What I hear, Texas' "growth" is piss-poor, service-sector, anti-labor growth and Perry doesn't deserve credit for it.

Here's an alternate take at politicalmathblog that has been deemed credible by Nate Silver, Tyler Cowen, and others. Also mentioned by Joshua in the diavlog.

You will find specific and credible rebuttals to these common arguments by Perry haters:

1. Texas has 8.2% unemployment which isn't special.
2. Texas generates lots of low wage jobs.
3. The oil sector is responsible for the boom.

[whburgess]

Originally Posted by Hume's Bastard

I'm ~40 minutes through, and I'm disappointed. Granted I spent a little - really brief - amount of time in West Texas stationed at Goodfellow AFB, and spent a weekend in Austin and Mexico - got the tattoos to prove it. Teasing Texans about their gait and their drawl is not how I see Perry going down. What I hear, Texas' "growth" is piss-poor, service-sector, anti-labor growth and Perry doesn't deserve credit for it.

My family's roots are in the Houston area, although I have not lived there since I was a child. When you talk about skilled labor in Texas, you're talking mostly in the energy sector or sectors derived from it. These are the most anti-union workers in the country, they do not see themselves in the slightest as in an adversarial relationship with the companies they work for.

Labor unions were once strong in Texas and Louisiana, but in the 60's they completely destroyed their reputation through graft, violent attacks on non union workers, and connections with organized crime. Unionism is almost synonymous with organized crime in the minds of most of the public. Of course they pay some price for this in lower wages; probably around 10% or 15%

[chiwhisoxx]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Here's an alternate take at politicalmathblog that has been deemed credible by Nate Silver, Tyler Cowen, and others. Also mentioned by Joshua in the diavlog.

You will find specific and credible rebuttals to these common arguments by Perry haters:

1. Texas has 8.2% unemployment which isn't special.
2. Texas generates lots of low wage jobs.
3. The oil sector is responsible for the boom.

a similar effort by Kevin Williamson here, specifically rebutting Paul Krugman's nuttiness:

http://www.nationalreview.com/excheq...ng-about-texas

it seems at this point there are a lot more mentions of the "the texas miracle" in the context of liberal bloggers trying to prove it's all imaginary than actual stories about economic success in texas. either way, there's plenty of other reasons to dislike and distrust perry. there's no need to get this melodramatic about something a governor exerts a rather small amount of control over.

[whburgess]

Joshua was great. I hope he comes back often as Perry's campaign continues.

Amanda's references to Perry as an 'aggressive redneck', gratuitous attacks on Bush, and explanations of how Texas conservatives are angry, was an ironic contrast to the polite shrugs with which the Texas conservative who worked for the Bush administration, and probably supports Perry, responded.

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

a similar effort by Kevin Williamson here, specifically rebutting Paul Krugman's nuttiness:

http://www.nationalreview.com/excheq...ng-about-texas

Another important fact that escapes Krugman: The fact that a large number of workers make minimum wage, combined with a young and immigrant-heavy population and millions of new jobs, may very well mean that teens and others who otherwise would not be working at all have found employment. That is a sign of economic strength, not of stagnation. New York and Massachusetts would be better off with millions of new minimum-wage workers — if that meant millions fewer unemployed people.

This is Williamson's conclusion, and it's exactly the sort of value judgment conservatives and liberals will divide over. Krugman cherry-picks his stats; Williamson can live with McJobs.

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

It seems at this point there are a lot more mentions of the "the texas miracle" in the context of liberal bloggers trying to prove it's all imaginary than actual stories about economic success in texas. either way, there's plenty of other reasons to dislike and distrust perry. there's no need to get this melodramatic about something a governor exerts a rather small amount of control over.

Good. If Williamson is going to sell his soul for McJobs, then being proactive and taking the fight to Perry is what Democrats should be doing. And, if Perry is going to talk about "his" economy, then pundits need to pop his big head, not Texan culture.

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by whburgess

Unionism is almost synonymous with organized crime in the minds of most of the public. Of course they pay some price for this in lower wages; probably around 10% or 15%

Again, this is one of those value judgments where libs and cons go 'round and 'round sparring with talking points all day. There's nothing necessarily good or bad about unions, and the same can be said for corporations or agencies.

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by whburgess

Amanda's references to Perry as an 'aggressive redneck', gratuitous attacks on Bush, and explanations of how Texas conservatives are angry, was an ironic contrast to the polite shrugs with which the Texas conservative who worked for the Bush administration, and probably supports Perry, responded.

I thought Marcotte was uncharacteristically muted. I wonder if it has something to do with the fact, that her interlocutor was a fellow Texan. I'm sure Trevino knew about Marcotte before he started, and he seems to have taken the best route to engaging her. Marcotte has her shtick, but, like Perry, I only think it works with non-Texans.

I thought the interaction was optimal.

[Starwatcher162536]

Don't have much to add. Just noticed San Antonio was mentioned and I love that town. I like it way better then Houston, Dallas, Corpus or Lubbock. All of which I've lived in. And, oh yeah, East Texas is ... ugh. Nacogdoches/Luftkin is the only semblance of civilization there and even then they both are ... ugh.

[ledocs]

Is it true that Dallas-Forth Worth or Houston are just as "cosmopolitan" as Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Seattle, or Boston? Somehow I doubt it. Haven't really been to Texas, though. I was there as a kid, El Paso anyway.

I have watched "Friday Night Lights," though, the first 25 episodes, and have the rest on order. And I read the very favorable review of it by Lorrie Moore in "The New York Review of Books."

My niece just spent a year in Austin, largely working in the cheese department of some upscale grocery chain where there were over 200 cheeses on offer. My guess is that Austin is far and away the most "cosmopolitan" place in Texas, or the most foodie-yuppified, and it's certainly the most intellectual place in Texas. I'm attracted by the bbq thing, a little bit by the music thing, not so much.

I did not understand Amanda's point about summers in Texas vs. NYC. There is air conditioning in New York. What's the difference? I guess she's saying that air conditioning is more ubiquitous in Texas than in NYC. Both places have unbearable heat, and I think someone was telling me that Austin is also very humid. They are working on 35 consecutive days of 100+ degree temperatures, and I believe they've got serious drought problems. So why is a Texas summer preferable?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Hume's Bastard

This is Williamson's conclusion, and it's exactly the sort of value judgment conservatives and liberals will divide over. Krugman cherry-picks his stats; Williamson can live with McJobs.

What is wrong with "McJobs" in a recession? Krugman, Robert Reich, and the entire lineup of MSNBC has told us that the country needs a "New Deal" approach to this economy, citing things like the WPA. The WPA was a federal "McJobs" program that was basically just busy work (Projects done by WPA workers frequently had to be redone by normal labor). At least these "McJobs" have utility.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I'm sorry.....is this a serious effort to suggest drug trafficking contributes any substantial amount to the Texas economy? Is this just Amanda Marcotte's thing, or is this the kitchen sink being thrown by the liberal blogosphere?

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by ledocs

Is it true that Dallas-Forth Worth or Houston are just as "cosmopolitan" as Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Seattle, or Boston? Somehow I doubt it. Haven't really been to Texas, though. I was there as a kid, El Paso anyway.

I spend about a third of my time in Houston, and I would say it's pretty cosmopolitan; it's actually a good deal LESS segregated than Chicago, for example. More similar to Miami or LA than to the northeast cities, in that it's pretty spread out, and not even remotely a walking city or even a public transit city (although i can get to/from the airport on a bus). Dallas, I don't know anything about, but having spent a weekend in Fort Worth, I can say with existential certainty that it is most definitely NOT cosmopolitan.

Now, drive any direction from Houston for an hour, and the cosmopolitanality drops precipitously. It rapidly morphs into Arkansas - style.

(but that's true on the east coast as well; they say, and it's true, that Pennsylvania is Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, and Alabama in between).

[whburgess]

Originally Posted by ledocs

I did not understand Amanda's point about summers in Texas vs. NYC. There is air conditioning in New York. What's the difference? I guess she's saying that air conditioning is more ubiquitous in Texas than in NYC. Both places have unbearable heat, and I think someone was telling me that Austin is also very humid. They are working on 35 consecutive days of 100+ degree temperatures, and I believe they've got serious drought problems. So why is a Texas summer preferable?

It's not. She was trying to say people were moving to Texas for the weather rather then for the jobs. Joshua pointed out how hot, humid, and miserable it can get, so that's when she had to get into the mental gymnastics about why someone would move to Texas for the weather.

[Wm. Blaxton]

Does Amanda Marcotte have any evidence for this interesting claim that the drug trade has materially affected not only the Texas economy, but the economic indicators (e.g., job growth) that have led observers to claim a "Texas miracle"?

Also, the word facetious doesn't mean what she seems to think it does.

On the whole, she doesn't really seem to know what she's talking about.

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

What is wrong with "McJobs" in a recession? Krugman, Robert Reich, and the entire lineup of MSNBC has told us that the country needs a "New Deal" approach to this economy, citing things like the WPA. The WPA was a federal "McJobs" program that was basically just busy work (Projects done by WPA workers frequently had to be redone by normal labor). At least these "McJobs" have utility.

No, WPA jobs restored and built infrastructure, mostly in the South, not offshore bank accounts.

[Hal Morris]

Originally Posted by ledocs

I did not understand Amanda's point about summers in Texas vs. NYC. There is air conditioning in New York. What's the difference? I guess she's saying that air conditioning is more ubiquitous in Texas than in NYC.

Haven't spent much time in Texas, but one guess is the major cities are built so you hardly have to go outside. Minneapolis is like that for the opposite reason. In Manhattan if you can't afford taxis you walk or take subways and buses. The buses are more pleasant, but slower. Subway platforms can be hot and miserable. In Brooklyn or Queens, if you have a car, you might well be parking 3 blocks away from your apartment.

[Hal Morris]

Originally Posted by Hume's Bastard

Teasing Texans about their gait and their drawl is not how I see Perry going down.

If he is ridiculed for that, there is no way it's going to hurt him, which I thought was the point. It would totally backfire. Actually, I think a few people will do this, and the right wing media will have their listeners/readers believing liberals are universally looking down on the non-elite. They only need a whiff of something to make a conflagration out of it.

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by Hal Morris

Haven't spent much time in Texas, but one guess is the major cities are built so you hardly have to go outside. Minneapolis is like that for the opposite reason. In Manhattan if you can't afford taxis you walk or take subways and buses. The buses are more pleasant, but slower. Subway platforms can be hot and miserable. In Brooklyn or Queens, if you have a car, you might well be parking 3 blocks away from your apartment.

Granted, I spent most of my training day in a secure, air-conditioned vault, but I actually enjoyed exercising in the open air, and throughout Texas and the border areas of Mexico never felt fatigued from heat. My sinuses loved the Southwest generally - Fort Huachuca, Arizona and southern California as well. I can't say the same for my native Maryland, Florida where my family lives, or even in Busan after the rainy season. I did, however, encounter my first tornado in West Texas. I never saw public transportation in Austin or El Paso, either, but I wasn't looking hard. I couldn't live without buses and subways in Busan, which allows me mostly to ignore the weather.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Hume's Bastard

No, WPA jobs restored and built infrastructure, mostly in the South, not offshore bank accounts.

The WPA did fairly shoddy work when it came to infrastructure projects, some of which were just plain unsafe. These were often make-work projects; like when "artists" were given WPA jobs to make what amounted to propaganda.

A "McJob" meets a real market need.

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by Hal Morris

If he is ridiculed for that, there is no way it's going to hurt him, which I thought was the point. It would totally backfire. Actually, I think a few people will do this, and the right wing media will have their listeners/readers believing liberals are universally looking down on the non-elite. They only need a whiff of something to make a conflagration out of it.

Unless I have bought the opening salvo by Citizen Radio about Perry's record on the economy, I didn't notice this sort of superfivial attack. Actually, all I recall hearing of Perry before this was, that as Lt. Governor, he and G.W. Bush didn't get along. And, the only insult I've read is, that Perry makes Bush look smart. I'd prefer to maintain the high ground.

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

The WPA did fairly shoddy work when it came to infrastructure projects, some of which were just plain unsafe. These were often make-work projects; like when "artists" were given WPA jobs to make what amounted to propaganda.

A "McJob" meets a real market need.

What about the Mathematical Tables Project? Or, LaGuardia Airport?

[bkjazfan]

Let me run some stats on state of Texas. In the past decade they have created 2.1 million jobs while Ca., Mass, and New York have all lost jobs.

Since 2009 they have created 40% of all the jobs in the U.S.

In the mid skill employment which requires at least 2 years of post secondary education they are at 16%, 3 times the national average, bested by only smaller Utah and Wyoming, while N.Y. is at 5%, Ca. and Mass. 2%, and Illinois is in the minus column.

In the STEM professions (science , technology, engineering, and mathematics) job creation has surged 11%, 4 times the national average while Ca., Mass., and N.Y have lost jobs.

What a horrible place!

On a personal note being a Californian this state is not what it used to be in the way of jobs. Whether it be low skilled to high tech there has been a mass exodus out of the state. This is still occurring and I see no recovery here unless it changes. With the middle class at 22% of the Los Angeles population it is moving to a 2 tiered state - the rich and the poor.

Statistical data via business writer Joel Kotkin.

[Wm. Blaxton]

Well, yeah. But the question is why.

You can't point to a disparity like this and simply announce that it's a product of [insert preferred economic policy here] without considering, e.g., the composition of the state's economy. There are a lot of factors that might be responsible for a state's aggregate job growth / loss, and some of the most important ones don't have much to do with policy.

[CrowsMakeTools]

The data about job creation in Texas is for real, and this includes jobs in the science/engineering sectors.

The anomaly, and where the political discussion should move, is the discrepancy between job creation and personal capital formation. In the Texas economy, even as jobs are being created, personal capital is not. Texas ranks 10th in foreclosures (Amanda, focusing on the progressive era legislation that served to protect Texas homeowners from foreclosure, misses this), and 49th in personal credit scores. Texas ranks 9th in the income gap between the rich and poor, 5th in the gap between the wealthy and the middle class, and 44th in home ownership.

This, then, is the libertarian paradise. A dynamic economy, with high levels of job creation, where wealth is being created, even as laissez faire, low tax public policy distributes it in a fashion that amplifies income and wealth disparity.

[whburgess]

Originally Posted by CrowsMakeTools

Texas ranks 9th in the income gap between the rich and poor, 5th in the gap between the wealthy and the middle class, and 44th in home ownership.

This, then, is the libertarian paradise. A dynamic economy, with high levels of job creation, where wealth is being created, even as laissez faire, low tax public policy distributes it in a fashion that amplifies income and wealth disparity.

Hey, did you know the USA has greater income inequality then Egypt?!
Don't you wish we were more like Egypt?
Now there's a real paradise!

[whburgess]

Originally Posted by CrowsMakeTools

The data about job creation in Texas is for real, and this includes jobs in the science/engineering sectors.

The anomaly, and where the political discussion should move, is the discrepancy between job creation and personal capital formation. In the Texas economy, even as jobs are being created, personal capital is not. Texas ranks 10th in foreclosures

According to CNN Texas looks pretty good on foreclosures.

Mousing over the map there, it looks like only Wyoming, Nebraska, the Dakotas, and Virginia are better.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by whburgess

Hey, did you know the USA has greater income inequality then Egypt?!
Don't you wish we were more like Egypt?
Now there's a real paradise!

If we keep it up, we might have more income inequality than Somalia or North Korea. Then your point will really have some emotional bite.

[piscivorous]

What does it say when Texas is able to maintain an unemployment rate nearly a full percentage point below the national average, given the in-migration the state is experiencing, from those states that are on the opposite side of the national average given their out-migration with Texas being one of the destinations.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

If we keep it up, we might have more income inequality than Somalia or North Korea. Then your point will really have some emotional bite.

Is it more important that you make as much as your neighbor or that you make more than you currently do?

[piscivorous]

I wonder if Amanda Marcotte has seen this one yet: CERN’s CLOUD experiment provides unprecedented insight into cloud formation

Based on the first results from CLOUD, it is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours and water alone. It is now urgent to identify the additional nucleating vapours, and whether their sources are mainly natural or from human activities.

Haven't read the Nature article yet, will have to get to the library for that, but it seems the science on global warming is not yet quite as settled as some would have us believe.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Is it more important that you make as much as your neighbor or that you make more than you currently do?

The latter, of course. But what if your neighbor is getting so much more wealthy for the same reasons that your own standard of living is stagnating?

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

The latter, of course. But what if your neighbor is getting so much more wealthy for the same reasons that your own standard of living is stagnating?

If your neighbor is making a crap ton of money, it means he has likely raised productivity in his specific field. This can have temporary displacement effects aka ship jobs overseas. Still, increased productivity is the only way to raise people's standard of living. When jobs move to China, Chinese workers have moved up a notch in wealth. The main problem with the United States is that it has forgotten how to make entrepreneurs. The left is hostile towards business when business people are the ones who create jobs.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

If your neighbor is making a crap ton of money, it means he has likely raised productivity in his specific field.

Not really. People make lots of money for nonproductive reasons. It's really not uncommon.

As well, productivity gains don't necessarily result in any increased numbers of jobs. It's not just shipping jobs to poorer countries. It's also automating and efficiencies that reduce the number of workers worldwide.

This results in reduced costs of goods, but that only improves standard of living if it offsets the loss of jobs worldwide. I think it's really an empirical question and a specific one.

Claiming that more money means more productivity and more productivity means more employment strikes me as the kind of thing that's faith based. It may be true in some cases, but not in others.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Not really. People make lots of money for nonproductive reasons. It's really not uncommon.

As well, productivity gains don't necessarily result in any increased numbers of jobs. It's not just shipping jobs to poorer countries. It's also automating and efficiencies that reduce the number of workers worldwide.

This results in reduced costs of goods, but that only improves standard of living if it offsets the loss of jobs worldwide. I think it's really an empirical question and a specific one.

Claiming that more money means more productivity and more productivity means more employment strikes me as the kind of thing that's faith based. It may be true in some cases, but not in others.

I didn't say productivity gains result in increased numbers of jobs. New technology displaces old workers, but new jobs and new needs arise. It's not a zero sum game. Only a handful of people do all of the farming in the United States. What about 100 years ago? What did farmers think when the first tractor was invented? I'm sure inefficient farmers went out of business, but such is the nature of creative destruction. You don't think we should all go back to being farmers, right? Today's problems are as old as ever. The difference I see this time around is that Americans are fat, lazy and are no longer entrepreneurial.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

If your neighbor is making a crap ton of money, it means he has likely raised productivity in his specific field. This can have temporary displacement effects aka ship jobs overseas. Still, increased productivity is the only way to raise people's standard of living. When jobs move to China, Chinese workers have moved up a notch in wealth. The main problem with the United States is that it has forgotten how to make entrepreneurs. The left is hostile towards business when business people are the ones who create jobs.

That's true in abstract economic models. I'm not at all convinced that it's true in the real world.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

That's true in abstract economic models. I'm not at all convinced that it's true in the real world.

There will always be bad actors. I'm not happy about the bankers getting away with billions either. However, in general, rich people can only get richer if they invest money wisely. Wisely means making a profit. A business not making a profit would go under along with the investor's money.

People with money have it because they put it to good use. Rich people who don't put their money to good use will lose it in due time.

The world is getting better.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

There will always be bad actors. I'm not happy about the bankers getting away with billions either. However, in general, rich people can only get richer if they invest money wisely.

I think the proportion of bad actors and the degree to which your "in general" applies are quite variable.