Did red states just abort their economies?

A lot of new jobs have been created in red states over the past few decades due to low personal income tax rates and (essentially) state/local bribery in the form of other benefits to the company.

Who moves to the red states for those jobs? Lots of younger adults and families (especially families with no kids–YET).

When the ability to obtain reproductive healthcare was available, that made moving to a red state a choice that was not hard to make.

However, with the bans of abortion in red states, that means those states have created major issues for the companies who decide where to site their facilities have been created.

Because the job market is primarily younger people, that means a wide variety of risks have been added at the personal level by the abortion bans–IF those younger people wanted to have families/children. The possibility of being required to pay $10k (or more) due to the state ban is something that would drive much of the younger employable cohort to look elsewhere for employment. For older workers, who are past the family-formation stage, this is not a significant issue. However, it would mean the children of those workers would NOT want to work in a red state because they are part of the cohort creating new families–and they want the “freedom of choice”, even if they don’t (need to) use it.

I foresee a major shift in a variety of announced-but-not-yet-started major projects in red state with abortion bans to be scaled back or even moved to a state with no abortion ban (now or in the future).

This is MAJOR MACRO EVENT created by the abortion bans passed by some red states. It is NOT POLITICAL.

30 Likes

I had about 5 posts on the dismal economics of abortion FA’ed and removed a few days ago. Read quickly.

intercst

4 Likes

Another point to consider: some companies are offering to pay transportation and lodging costs for their employees to travel to another state for an abortion. Will state governments punish companies for offering that benefit, the way Florida punished Disney over it’s gay-friendly policy?

We already have private, for-profit, companies that refuse to provide health insurance that covers contraception.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), is a landmark decision[1][2] in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing privately held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation its owners religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law’s interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. It is the first time that the court has recognized a for-profit corporation’s claim of religious belief,[3] but it is limited to privately held corporations.[a] The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,….

How many northerners will be comfortable starting each day with a mandatory prayer lead by the “JC”? When I was working at a Steelcase dealership, I heard of another dealer in, iirc, South Carolina, that had mandatory daily prayers.

The essence of “at will” employment is the “JC” is dictator. If the “JC”, by his own initiative, or to protect state subsidies he receives, infringes the employee’s right of self-determination, the employee’s only options are put up with it, or quit.

Steve

2 Likes

We already have private, for-profit, companies that refuse to provide health insurance that covers contraception.

Not the same problem–not even close.

Remember the TX law: Can be SUED for $10k for (aiding/abetting) abortion and they have to pay it (husband, not wife)–but the cash comes out of their pocket. Plus, the law was passed after businesses already were in TX.

Now, employees can say “No to TX” or any other red state with an abortion ban.

Companies can tell the red states with abortion bans they will not locate in those states.

This works for a lot of the high-tech companies because their workforce is mostly younger people who are at the family-formation stage (or looking to do it).

I expect a significant job exodus (especially high-tech jobs) from TX as people refuse to work there (or in similar states). Companies do NOT have a choice. No investment if people won’t go there.

3 Likes

Not the same problem–not even close.

I’m talking a bigger picture: the trend to denying employees any rights, at the whim of a pol or “JC”.

I got schooled years ago on how even something as simple as a vacation benefit was a gift that the “JC” could revoke at any time. I worked, without a vacation, for years on end. When I did put in a vacation request, I would be told “you can’t go, you need to stay here and work”, with no plea of short staffing, nor an offer to hand me a check for the vacation pay they refuse to let me use, or anything, just, in effect “shut up and work”.

Steve

1 Like

The red states are interested in using people. That is why often the minimum wage is $7.25.

Young folks will avoid those states for all sorts of reasons. It is not worth their time is the bottom line.

3 Likes

Referring to Red States is inherently political.
Why not just refer to them as low income tax states and/or corrupt states? That’s how you described them.

But simply for your argument - states with anti-abortion laws.

Then you can discuss the macro impact of those laws without political overtones.

9 Likes

Neuron,

I agree to an extent with you about how to classify the red states.

What you have wrong is the low tax part of it. You need to have a good sized income to reap a low income tax or no income tax state’s benefits.

The property and sales taxes are regressive and make up the difference in tax revenues.

In effect the red states are high tax low pay. They are full of false advertising. Again wishing people were plain stupid to use them.

3 Likes

In effect the red states are high tax low pay. They are full of false advertising.

With respect to Texas that is sure true. (I have lived here since 1989). High property taxes, high sales taxes, lots of hidden taxes. It’s a very regressive system that hurts more the less money you make, and hurts less the more money you make. Whenever relatives back home in Indiana ask how I like living in a “low tax state” I just start talking about property taxes and they shut up pretty quick.

22 Likes

Yep, the excuse out of some of the prairie states, “we have farm roads between all those open expanses with no real tax base to repair them”. It goes many levels of management and government higher into keeping stupid so you can use them. The education systems also really suffer.

1 Like

Curious what impact, if any, this will have on Tesla’s recruiting efforts as they expand into Texas.

“With respect to Texas that is sure true. (I have lived here since 1989). High property taxes, high sales taxes, lots of hidden taxes. It’s a very regressive system that hurts more the less money you make, and hurts less the more money you make. Whenever relatives back home in Indiana ask how I like living in a “low tax state” I just start talking about property taxes and they shut up pretty quick.”

Property taxes here are moderate. My sister pays $12,000 a year in suburban MD for a house about the same size as mine in TX. Since I am a senior over 65, my real estate taxes are frozen for life at $4000/yr. Otherwise, they’d be $7500 on my house.

Meanwhile, my sister pays high state income tax in MD. Pays sales taxes. (6%_ , and just a bit less sales tax here 8.00 to 8.5% depending upon location. There is no sales tax on food in TX either. 6% tax on new cars.

When I moved to TX from Arlington with ultra low real estates (most paid multi-thousands a year - Arlington had tons of industry/buildings to keep rates real low - mine $1000/yr) in 1990, my total tax bill was with a few percent. VA just collected tax differently. Still had sales tax (near 6% then), vehicle tax (which could be hundreds on a used vehicle to thousands a year on a new vehicle), and of course, real estate taxes. Vehicle tax rates in the boonies was less. Many kept old cars to avoid the car tax which was based upon current Blue Book value.

Lots of places like in Indiana in TX with $300/yr tax bills in smaller towns and places and out in the country side. Add up their taxes and it’s likely the same.

t

1 Like

With respect to Texas that is sure true. (I have lived here since 1989). High property taxes, high sales taxes, lots of hidden taxes. It’s a very regressive system that hurts more the less money you make, and hurts less the more money you make. Whenever relatives back home in Indiana ask how I like living in a “low tax state” I just start talking about property taxes and they shut up pretty quick.

Still better than a state like NJ … where there are high property taxes (among the highest in the country), high sales taxes, AND an income tax, along with all sorts of assorted fees and other additional expenses not strictly tax-related (like tolls, etc).

2 Likes

I agree that people and businesses will start to avoid the red states in order to avoid life-threatening health problems for women and financial problems for the men that care about them. I’m pretty sure that ob-gyns will move their practices if they can find a way to do it, also.

Another problem is all the families that are already in those states. It is really hard to move from a low-cost-of-living state to a high-cost-of-living state. But I think that a lot of people will try it–this may create problems in the states that they are moving to, at least temporarily. (I’ve seen some Twitter posts from women, especially nurses, asking advice about what state to move to.) And it obviously will do nothing good for the real estate market (or any other business) in the states that they leave.

It’s the same old story–location, location, location. Don’t buy in a lousy neighborhood because it’s cheap.

I just saw a chart about the number of districts in Georgia that have no ob-gyn. It was more than half the state. Even anti-abortion diehards won’t want to live in states where there is no medical care for pregnancy.

Yes, red states are hurting their economies, and not just because businesses may start avoiding them.

1 Like

Please take Neuromancer’s post to heart. The next time you use “red” and “blue” as a code for political parties I will FA the post.

Refer directly to the policy and leave politics out of your post.
Wendy

2 Likes

The next time you use “red” and “blue” as a code for political parties I will FA the post.

That is how the states identify themselves. Not refutable.

Virtually all the state rankings include a “red vs blue state” comparison.

Are you going to FA all the posts with links to those types of comparisons? This is the real world.

2 Likes

Still better than a state like NJ

Mark,

The jist of what we are saying is in Alabama you do not get the pay in a good job often. Your kids do not get as good an education. Your kids might get paid a lot less.

If you are a minority or female your pay is less and you stand a good chance of being paid $7.25/hr. The claims no one actually gets the $7.25 are only somewhat good for white male of those on the bottom rungs of the income ladder. It is a bold racist misogynist lie.

Your property values wont go up as fast as in NJ. The odds your kids make better money wont be as possible.

Your medical care will be more spotty.

There’s a lot of speculation about how abortion bans are going to impact college enrollment. What 18 year old, away from home for the first time and eager to explore all that college has to offer (wink-wink-nudge-nudge) is going to want to go to or stay in a state that bans abortion?

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjkpa7/students-fear-going-t…

"Allie Schachtel, an independent college admissions counselor based in Florida, said she’s seen a growing number of clients start to make the geography of abortion rights a primary criteria. “I’ve had parents and students say we aren’t looking at any schools in Texas or any schools in Tennessee and Ohio,” she said. "

“Cora Jackson, 18, accepted a spot at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee—a prestigious school that offered her a full-tuition scholarship…But now, she’s watching Tennessee closely and is considering transferring out of the elite institution if the state further restricts access to reproductive care.”

“Chantal Mann was on a college tour with other students in Indiana when she heard the news…Almost immediately, she started crossing prospective colleges off her list, including Oklahoma City University, Baldwin Wallace in Ohio, Texas State University, and the University of Arizona.”

“Ashley Huynh, 17, a rising high school senior in Montgomery County, Maryland … “The overturn of Roe definitely solidified my decision to go to a college in a state where it will still continue to protect women’s rights”

7 Likes

Personally, I think it would make more sense to not get pregnant in the first place. Since it’s proven that “Abstinence only” education is an utter failure when it comes to preventing pregnancies, condoms break, pills can be forgotten (and their efficacy temporarily degraded when taking antibiotics), and drunken mistakes happen, equipping our daughters with an IUD prior to departure seems to be the most sensible thing to do.

3 Likes

I just saw a chart about the number of districts in Georgia that have no ob-gyn. It was more than half the state.

That’s partly because GA has SO MANY counties. Over 150 at last count. Just because a county doesn’t have an OB GYM or a pediatrician, doesn’t mean that you don’t have one of those specialties just a short drive away … in an adjacent county. I have family in GA and just on a short 25 minute drive around for shopping at various places, I can be in 3 counties!

2 Likes