[michmoldman]

Originally Posted by actinic

In defense of heavy traffic I don't see the problem ... traffic means jobs and MI remains stuck at #4 in highest unemployment after all these years.

If having lower unemployment means wall to wall traffic wherever you go for hours on end....sounds crazy, but you can have all that.

[MS313]

Originally Posted by actinic

The sunbelter's defense of their weather is laughable at times. Deep down they know the criticism has merit but simply don't want to admit it. In defense of heavy traffic I don't see the problem ... traffic means jobs and MI remains stuck at #4 in highest unemployment after all these years.

Look at the unemployment numbers for CA and IL. Both states top the charts in unemployment yet still have horrible traffic. The difference between Detroit and many major cities is the freeways in Detroit stay apart all the way to downtown. MDOT was smart enough to know that merging major freeways together to make one big freeway and running it straight through downtown will cause all sorts of traffic problems. Look at Atlanta, or Chicago for reference.

As if Detroit traffic isn't already bad enough during rush hour, imagine if I-75 and I-94 were merged and I-96 and the lodge were merged . But idk, maybe that would have kept Metro Detroit from sprawling out so far.

[actinic]

Originally Posted by MS313

Look at the unemployment numbers for CA and IL. Both states top the charts in unemployment yet still have horrible traffic.

That's simply because their populations are considerably larger which means the number of unemployed AND employed are considerably larger. To infer that traffic is bad in spite of higher unemployment ignores this fact.

[actinic]

Originally Posted by michmoldman

If having lower unemployment means wall to wall traffic wherever you go for hours on end....sounds crazy, but you can have all that.

Then it seems the lack of mass transportation options dooms this state in the public's eye, at least to those who don't like traffic. Heaven forbid that major employers would consider setting up shop here. Can't aggravate the traffic situation!

[mjlo]

Not every area in the state has high unemployment.

[canudigit]

Originally Posted by actinic

Then it seems the lack of mass transportation options dooms this state in the public's eye, at least to those who don't like traffic. Heaven forbid that major employers would consider setting up shop here. Can't aggravate the traffic situation!

I think this whole traffic issue has gotten a bit out of hand. When I commented on the traffic in Florida and other cities like Atlanta, I said I would rather live somewhere without that kind of congestion. That is NOT the same as saying that I hope that Michigan never attracts new businesses or adds new jobs. It just means that I appreciate that I live in a state that is so big and has so many rural areas where traffic is not, nor will it probably ever be, a problem, even if Michigan's economy booms and jobs are plentiful. I am all for Michigan growing its economy and attracting new businesses, but I also realize that even if that happens, traffic in the small town in the rural county where I live will still never be a problem, and to me, that's a good thing.

[MS313]

Originally Posted by actinic

That's simply because their populations are considerably larger which means the number of unemployed AND employed are considerably larger. To infer that traffic is bad in spite of higher unemployment ignores this fact.

That's a somewhat good point. But take a city like Atlanta for example, Atlanta is smaller than Chicago and has a higher unemployment rate yet still has worse traffic than Chicago.

[actinic]

Originally Posted by MS313

That's a somewhat good point. But take a city like Atlanta for example, Atlanta is smaller than Chicago and has a higher unemployment rate yet still has worse traffic than Chicago.

It's nearly all about mass transportation, not employment rates:

Best And Worst Cities For Commuters - Forbes

[magellan]

I think you guys are getting way off topic.

[Giesela]

One thing about Michigan, at least as far as I've gotten on research (which isn't too deep yet) is that the retirement tax thing seems very complicated.
I get that some states are really good places to retire vis a vis not taxing retirement or other things and some places are not.
Michigan is a mixed bag. Some retirement income is taxed, other is not, a lot of it is or isn't........depending.
I'm someone who is willing to pay taxes as I think what we get is pretty good bang for the buck.
But I hate figuring out taxes. KEEP IT SIMPLE