CNNMoney has a semi-hit piece, by Tina Luhby, on Rick Perry that I am sure will become the mantra of the Dems once Perry announces that he will run for President today (emphasis mine):
Texas has created a lot of jobs over the 10 years that Rick Perry's been governor -- there's no doubt about it.
But that doesn't mean that all is well with employment in the Lone Star State. Texas leads the nation in minimum-wage jobs, and many positions don't offer health benefits.
Texas is the lone bright spot in the nation, creating 40% of all jobs in the country over the last 10 years. Why is that, you may ask? The one thing that is great about this country is that if your state becomes hostile to business, you can move to another state. And people looking for a better opportunity will look around to find the state that would be the best to satisfy their need to be productive. Apparently over the last 10 years that state is Texas.
People have voted with their feet to find opportunity and escape the oppression of their home states. So Texas has benefited not only from pro-business policies, but also the hostile environment of donor states like California, Illinois and New York. All these states have one thing in common. Liberals run the show, high taxes and regulation.
So, Tami Luhby is trying to make the case that, just because Texas is doing well, it's really not that well because Texas leads the nation in minimum-wage employment that don't offer benefits. Oh the shame, the shame.
By her reasoning it would be better to pay fewer people a higher wage than more people a lower wage. Typical liberal thinking. Maybe, just maybe, the uptick in supply of labor (more people looking for work) has caused the market to value that labor temporarily lower? This is what gets me about liberals and how they think. They are absolutely oblivious to market pressures. My guess is that since Texas is more business friendly, these so-called lower paying jobs will evolve into higher paying jobs over time as the market catches up with the sudden influx of labor. Point in fact:
Perhaps most importantly, Texas can't create jobs fast enough to keep up with its rapidly growing population. Since 2007, the state's number of working-age residents expanded by 6.6%, nearly twice the national average.
Tina doesn't bother to ask why Texas' population is growing so rapidly, she just simply laments the lack of, ahem, jobs to satisfy the influx. Texas is going through growing pains all the other states would love to have, yet Tina sees it as a bug rather than a feature. Further, rather than giving Perry credit for the growth, she of course sees Texas' natural resources as key.
Of course, Texas enjoys advantages that have nothing to do with having Perry at the helm. Rich in natural resources, the state has been benefiting from the high price of oil and the expanded interest in natural gas exploration. Energy employment has soared by 16.8% over the past year alone.
Really, Texas is the only state with these advantages? What about, say, California who have huge natural resource reserves that Sacramento refuses to utilize to create jobs and an economic boom. Texas does enjoy an abundance natural resources, it also enjoys a state government that stays the hell out of the way while living within their means. And that is the key to economic activity, not government intervention and high taxes.