politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
So reading through this is a bit surprising. I hadn't been paying as much attention to some of these state based issues. It looks like the argument of the article is that despite strong historic economic numbers some of the recent steps taken by states have created challenges for businesses.
It seems that the knock down effect of reproductive health laws in a restriction in the number of practicing doctors per state. So it is not exactly the law that is the issue, but the fact that the ratio of doctors to patients is going in an adverse direction. The article is arguing that the extent is enough to create challenges for citizens in Texas. That seems like a sound premise, basically its harder to get and see a doctor because fewer doctors are moving to Texas compared to the growing population.
It seems that the states that were less of economic powerhouses to begin with could have negative effects with less strict laws since they didn't start from as strong a position.
The rest of it seems to be based on how accessible child care and health insurance are. If you want families and not just labor those resources can greatly reduce the need for high wages.
I'd briefly seen the big fails, like the Texas power grid and the bans on investment funds taking climate change into account. There was also that thing where Florida decide it was time to kill Disney.
Not moving the office buildings to Florida was a MUCH bigger deal to Disney that it appeared. The cost of 1-2 billion was going to be offset by MUCH lower cost of living for employees,(less pay as well) favorable taxes an the sale of super valuable real estate in California. It was very likely structured to be a net positive for the company. So I think that this is basically the core of the article. Even what should be on paper good deals are now in questions because of the state policies.
Hey this is pretty level headed and what you're saying makes sense. Please check out lemmy.world/c/moderate_politics we'd love to have you!
subscribed. I'm not sure I'm moderate, but I'll chime in when I get the time.