Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Except NO Major Pro Sports in the Big 3 Leagues...that's always going to keep Cincy and Cleveland above Columbus for me...especially no NFL here or MLB. Otherwise yes, it's growing faster but has no real identity either...it's not much different than Indianapolis but at least Indy has pro sports and has the identity of stock car racing w/ the Indy 500 and Brickyard 500...plust the fact that it hosts major events like Big Ten Title game, Big Ten Tourny, and even a Super Bowl along w/ several Final Fours.
It's sad when people wrap a city's identity around millionaires playing kids games in front of crowds of thousands. When I was a kid, I was really, really into baseball. Then I grew up. Sports is a really pathetic thing to define a city around. What did cities rely on before there were no pro-sports?
To those who say columbus doesn't have major league sports..Being from Denver and having lived in quite a few large cities..I would say and statewide polling has proven that Ohio st football is a much bigger spectacle than say the bengals who I've attended many games in PBS..and I prefer the nhl and osu football to the other sports..having said that..I am huge reds fan..Question..? If the sports leagues were forming now..which of t 3 c's would get the most franchises?next question..in 30 years which of the 3 c's will have the most franchises?
Once again, you're distorting what I've written to fit you own needs.
First, you've ignored the important information presented in my #186 post. Basically, those quoted paragraphs from an Enquirer article summarized it all. So here's an additional paragraph from that same news story: "Southwest Ohio's Hamilton, Butler, Warren and Clermont counties together have 400,000 more people than Franklin County, but combined they still got fewer promised jobs and about $30 million less in tax-credit value. Even Cleveland's Cuyahoga County, the state's largest county, lagged well behind Franklin." (Make it any clearer for you?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
It's not a distortion. You provided the link (which I'm sure you no doubt regret now because it didn't exactly show what you wanted it to). Is what I am saying about the numbers factually incorrect or not? Am I lying about it?
Yes, as a matter of fact, you are because you provided a link of your own, not mine. My last reference to any Cincinnati Enquirer article (Post #192, cited above) was a quote which explicitly challenged Columbus' distribution of millions of tax-dollars, via its stranglehold on "JobsOhio." Therefore, I have no regret and I'm calling you out for your deception.
You're making assumptions as to the spending habits of people who get these jobs, and you have absolutely no supporting evidence for it. You have no idea how or in what capacity any of the created incomes are being spent in any of the cities, so you can't assume that any indirect jobs are being created from them. Unless you have some link that shows this?
Further, even if Hamilton County's created jobs returned $1000 more per year in state income taxes, the sheer difference in the overall number of jobs created more than cancels it out.
The Ohio income tax on a created job in Hamilton County would be roughly $3,288.45.
The Ohio income tax on a created job in Franklin County would be roughly $2,560.10.
That's a difference per job collected by the state of $728.35, not $1,000.
Hamilton County created 2,949 jobs, giving the state back about $9,697,639.05 in income taxes.
Franklin County created 11,415 jobs, giving the state back about $29,223,541.50 in income taxes.
So Franklin County's created jobs gave back the state more than 3x the income taxes than did Hamilton County's created jobs. The better investment is still Franklin County, even if Hamilton County's jobs return a bit more per job. It's still not creating enough of them to make up the difference, not be far.
I won't disagree that there are certainly some unknowns, and I suspect that JobsOhio is inflating job creation numbers across the board. We can only go by the data that's being given, though.
The problem with that scenario is that no single industry dominates, even government. Any downturn that would hit things like education, health, utilities, etc. would hit just about everyone hard.
One doesn't have to know the exact spending habits to make multiplier estimates, it's what economists do. Read in particular Enrico Moretti's New Geography of Jobs or papers such as these:
Which all show that not all jobs are created equal. Multiple studies show higher wage jobs have a larger impact on the local economy than lower wage jobs. Wage multipliers are a basic economic tenet shared by both conservative (i.e. trickle-down economics) and liberal (i.e. increasing the minimum wage; all of Keynesian economic thought) economists, to deny them really makes about as much sense as denying the earth is round.
As for the tax estimate, I was basing my estimate off of this study:
if you have exact figures all the better, but still more money returns to the state and local coffers in addition to more jobs being created with each new Hamilton Co. job compared to each new Franklin Co. job, adding to the former's efficiency and making your original claim that Franklin Co's more efficient with investment money in job creation more dubious.
And finally, yes, any recession will hit everyone hard, my point is that recessions tend to hit some cities harder than others depending on the industry mix. They always have and they always will. An education based recession will hit Columbus harder than the other two C's because more of its overall economy is based on education. There's a small version of this scenario happening right now that's getting masked by the city's robust construction trade, but health and education is the only employment sector in Columbus expected to downsize in the third quarter, and this sector's stagnation in C-bus but not in other parts of the state is slowing its growth relative to the other C's over the last couple of quarters and is expected to again in the third quarter.
To those who say columbus doesn't have major league sports..Being from Denver and having lived in quite a few large cities..I would say and statewide polling has proven that Ohio st football is a much bigger spectacle than say the bengals who I've attended many games in PBS..and I prefer the nhl and osu football to the other sports..having said that..I am huge reds fan..Question..? If the sports leagues were forming now..which of t 3 c's would get the most franchises?next question..in 30 years which of the 3 c's will have the most franchises?
If franchises were only just now being given out, perhaps Columbus would get more of them based on population size alone, but I don't think, even 30 years from now, will Columbus have the most. Realistically, the situation will be pretty much the same as it is now. If I thought Cleveland/Cincinnati would continue to decline, maybe things would be different, but I don't expect that.
But I really don't think it matters anyway. If having lots of pro sports was a deciding factor in growth, Columbus would already be falling behind. It's clear that they're not that important.
Yes, as a matter of fact, you are because you provided a link of your own, not mine. My last reference to any Cincinnati Enquirer article (Post #192, cited above) was a quote which explicitly challenged Columbus' distribution of millions of tax-dollars, via its stranglehold on "JobsOhio." Therefore, I have no regret and I'm calling you out for your deception.
You didn't post a link in #192. It's rather difficult to verify something that you only say. I at least posted a link (and one you did post because I saved it after you did).
I would also love to know how any of the math done was factually incorrect. I'll be waiting.
One doesn't have to know the exact spending habits to make multiplier
estimates, it's what economists do. Read in particular Enrico Moretti's New Geography of Jobs or papers such as these:
So then any idea what the multiplier differences would be between 11,415 jobs vs 2,949, even with a 30% difference in pay per job? I suspect, at the very least, they wouldn't be as far apart as you're trying to say.
So let's assume that the 30% difference in pay translates to a multiplier of 2 for Cincinnati but only 1.5 for Columbus. Cincinnati would double every original job created, but Columbus would only gain half of one. Cincinnati's original total would rise to 5,898. Columbus' original total would rise to 17,123. Let's then assume that all those 5,898 jobs in Cincinnati paid the $60,285 and all of Columbus' still paid $45,668. Payroll in Cincinnati would be $355,560,930. Payroll in Columbus would be $781,973,164. Still a huge difference, and the state would still be earning much more in income taxes from Franklin County.
Of course, this is really based on assumptions of multiplier. We have no idea what it would actually be, but I suspect that any indirect jobs created would likely not exceed double the original total even in the best-case scenario. However, I'd be curious to know exactly what multiplier would be needed in Cincinnati's case to actually overcome the total original jobs in Franklin County. It'd likely have to be ridiculously high while Franklin County's stay low, which is not a very realistic scenario. In any event, I just don't see a scenario in which Hamilton County's original total creates a better overall economic return, either for the city or the state. And this is not an attempt to bash Cincinnati or say those jobs don't matter. They do, but the math just doesn't work out in its favor.
Quote:
Which all show that not all jobs are created equal. Multiple studies show higher
wage jobs have a larger impact on the local economy than lower wage jobs. Wage
multipliers are a basic economic tenet shared by both conservative (i.e.
trickle-down economics) and liberal (i.e. increasing the minimum wage; all of
Keynesian economic thought) economists, to deny them really makes about as much
sense as denying the earth is round.
And that's fine, but from my pov, we don't know what the actual multiplier would be. It's just an assumption, and I don't know of a scenario in which even the 30% pay difference would make up the difference.
Quote:
As for the tax estimate, I was basing my estimate off of this study:
if you have exact figures all the better, but still more money returns to the
state and local coffers in addition to more jobs being created with each new
Hamilton Co. job compared to each new Franklin Co. job, adding to the former's
efficiency and making your original claim that Franklin Co's more efficient with
investment money in job creation more dubious.
And actually, I did the original calculation wrong. I looked at the wrong tax bracket last night.
Tax from Cincinnati's jobs would be $2,291.90 and Columbus' would be $1,536.50.
So the income tax from Cincinnati's 2,949 jobs be $6,758,813.10.
The income tax from Columbus' 11,415 jobs would be $17,842,786.50.
So perhaps slightly under 3x larger.
Quote:
And finally, yes, any recession will hit everyone hard, my point is that
recessions tend to hit some cities harder than others depending on the industry
mix. They always have and they always will. An education based recession will
hit Columbus harder than the other two C's because more of its overall economy
is based on education. There's a small version of this scenario happening right
now that's getting masked by the city's robust construction trade, but health
and education is the only employment sector in Columbus expected to downsize in
the third quarter, and this sector's stagnation in C-bus but not in other parts
of the state is slowing its growth relative to the other C's over the last
couple of quarters and is expected to again in the third quarter.
There is no evidence that a recession would hit Columbus harder given that it's not happened yet on the many recessions that have come before. Could it happen? I suppose, but it'd have to be very specifically targeted as industries that only Columbus is strong in. Even an education-based recession would not necessarily hit hard, simply because the industry combo of health and education is not even the biggest industry in the metro. It's 4th, and education jobs, of course, are not the full total anyway.
So then any idea what the multiplier differences would be between 11,415 jobs vs 2,949, even with a 30% difference in pay per job? I suspect, at the very least, they wouldn't be as far apart as you're trying to say.
So let's assume that the 30% difference in pay translates to a multiplier of 2 for Cincinnati but only 1.5 for Columbus. Cincinnati would double every original job created, but Columbus would only gain half of one. Cincinnati's original total would rise to 5,898. Columbus' original total would rise to 17,123. Let's then assume that all those 5,898 jobs in Cincinnati paid the $60,285 and all of Columbus' still paid $45,668. Payroll in Cincinnati would be $355,560,930. Payroll in Columbus would be $781,973,164. Still a huge difference, and the state would still be earning much more in income taxes from Franklin County.
Of course, this is really based on assumptions of multiplier. We have no idea what it would actually be, but I suspect that any indirect jobs created would likely not exceed double the original total even in the best-case scenario. However, I'd be curious to know exactly what multiplier would be needed in Cincinnati's case to actually overcome the total original jobs in Franklin County. It'd likely have to be ridiculously high while Franklin County's stay low, which is not a very realistic scenario. In any event, I just don't see a scenario in which Hamilton County's original total creates a better overall economic return, either for the city or the state. And this is not an attempt to bash Cincinnati or say those jobs don't matter. They do, but the math just doesn't work out in its favor.
And that's fine, but from my pov, we don't know what the actual multiplier would be. It's just an assumption, and I don't know of a scenario in which even the 30% pay difference would make up the difference.
And actually, I did the original calculation wrong. I looked at the wrong tax bracket last night.
Tax from Cincinnati's jobs would be $2,291.90 and Columbus' would be $1,536.50.
So the income tax from Cincinnati's 2,949 jobs be $6,758,813.10.
The income tax from Columbus' 11,415 jobs would be $17,842,786.50.
So perhaps slightly under 3x larger.
There is no evidence that a recession would hit Columbus harder given that it's not happened yet on the many recessions that have come before. Could it happen? I suppose, but it'd have to be very specifically targeted as industries that only Columbus is strong in. Even an education-based recession would not necessarily hit hard, simply because the industry combo of health and education is not even the biggest industry in the metro. It's 4th, and education jobs, of course, are not the full total anyway.
For the wage multiplier and the income tax, don't change the goalposts, I'm not trying to figure out if Cincinnati has more total jobs created on less money, I'm trying to figure out if Columbus is more efficient per tax credit dollar spent. That's the claim I had issue with, and that's where the multiplier and return on taxes makes it less likely to be true. Columbus has created more jobs since the recession, there's no question about that, my trouble is with your assertion that it's more efficient with credits and then your second assertion that it would be more efficient in job creation with any investment money based on that. With your example above, the 2x multiplier for Cincinnati would mean $14 for every tax credit spent returned to the local wage base vs. $11 for every $1 spent in Columbus. As you suggest, the multipliers are likely closer to each other than that, but there's little reason to think that they'd close enough to give Columbus the edge in tax credit efficiency.
For the wage multiplier and the income tax, don't change the goalposts, I'm not trying to figure out if Cincinnati has more total jobs created on less money, I'm trying to figure out if Columbus is more efficient per tax credit dollar spent. That's the claim I had issue with, and that's where the multiplier and return on taxes makes it less likely to be true. Columbus has created more jobs since the recession, there's no question about that, my trouble is with your assertion that it's more efficient with credits and then your second assertion that it would be more efficient in job creation with any investment money based on that. With your example above, the 2x multiplier for Cincinnati would mean $14 for every tax credit spent returned to the local wage base vs. $11 for every $1 spent in Columbus. As you suggest, the multipliers are likely closer to each other than that, but there's little reason to think that they'd close enough to give Columbus the edge in tax credit efficiency.
No goalposts changed, I just gave math for all of it... income tax return to the state, overall payroll, potential multiplier, etc. The only thing Cincinnati stays ahead on is the individual pay per job.
And you don't have an exact multiplier. I gave the math assuming that the multiplier in Cincinnati doubled the number of jobs created there, and half as much for Columbus (despite the payroll per job only being 30% less), and the math still didn't work out for Cincinnati. So even after attempting to give Cincinnati a much greater edge, I still wasn't able to make it work.
My claim that Columbus was more efficient per dollar in job creation was strictly based on the math in that link. The multiplier stuff is strictly pulled-from-butt assumptions because neither of us know what it actually is. I'm sure we can both make up numbers that show one or the other doing better in multiplier return, but there is also a level of believability that has to remain. There is no reason, for example, to expect the multiplier in Cincinnati to be 3 or 4 x larger than Columbus because of a 30% difference in average job pay. 2x is probably as good as it gets, which is why I used that.
No goalposts changed, I just gave math for all of it... income tax return to the state, overall payroll, potential multiplier, etc. The only thing Cincinnati stays ahead on is the individual pay per job.
And you don't have an exact multiplier. I gave the math assuming that the multiplier in Cincinnati doubled the number of jobs created there, and half as much for Columbus (despite the payroll per job only being 30% less), and the math still didn't work out for Cincinnati. So even after attempting to give Cincinnati a much greater edge, I still wasn't able to make it work.
My claim that Columbus was more efficient per dollar in job creation was strictly based on the math in that link. The multiplier stuff is strictly pulled-from-butt assumptions because neither of us know what it actually is. I'm sure we can both make up numbers that show one or the other doing better in multiplier return, but there is also a level of believability that has to remain. There is no reason, for example, to expect the multiplier in Cincinnati to be 3 or 4 x larger than Columbus because of a 30% difference in average job pay. 2x is probably as good as it gets, which is why I used that.
You gave the math for something that wasn't even being debated. I guess it's probably not changing the goal posts so much as it's introducing straw men. I never was arguing that Columbus didn't produce more jobs, and nobody ever said Cincinnati's wage multiplier was 3 or 4x larger than Columbus. You seem to do this a lot.
I was assuming 1.9x and 1.7x, for multipliers, actually, typical for jobs in those wage ranges which would give Columbus a return of $12.83 on every tax credit dollar spent and Cincinnati a return of $13.41.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
