Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Robert H.]

Forbes Magazine has ranked Cheyenne and Casper Wyoming as the 12th and 14th best small cities in the country "for business and careers."

Excerpt from an article in today's edition of the Casper Star-Tribune:


"Forbes magazine has singled out Cheyenne and Casper as two of the best small cities in the United States for doing business.

Out of 168 metropolitan areas ranging in population from 57,000 to 330,000, Forbes ranked Cheyenne as the 12th best and Casper the 14th best small cities in the nation for business and careers, according to the Forbes Web site (www.forbes.com).

The magazine also ranked Casper as the No.1 small city in the country when it comes to the cost of doing business, with Cheyenne second."

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2003/05/14/news/casper/9c418440cdb92a0cfb4775f061bc75fa.txt

The article goes on to describe various factors that led to Forbes giving Cheyenne and Casper such high ratings, and, in the words of one Wyoming businessman whose job it is to lure new business into the state: "obviously reflects primarily on the state of Wyoming and the tax and the regulatory situation here."

[Robert H.]

Here's a link to the small city rankings at Forbes.

[JT]

Very interesting.  Some other cities/towns in our candidate states that made the top 100 list:

Sioux Falls, SD -  #1
Fargo, ND -            5
Rapid City, SD-      8
Missoula, MT -       11
Pocatello, ID-        19
Billings, MT-           23
Bismark, ND          25
Burlington, VT-      36
Grand Forks, ND-  39
Portland, ME-        55
Dover, DE-            93
   
So North Dakota (with probably the worst economy in the United States) has 3 cities that made the cut, South Dakota (nobody in the FSP seems too keen on this state either) has 2 cities in the top 10.  Montana and Wyoming each have 2 cities on the list.  

The article doesn't go into much detail as to how the rankings were determined.  Other categories the states are ranked by: Cost of doing business, job growth, educational attainment, and population...

[Karl]

What happened to New Hampshire?
None of its towns made the list of 168.

Sure they did -- albeit in a terribly unfair and useless way.  According to FedGov -- who's data and geographical categories this was undoubtedly based on -- the NH counties of Hillsborough, Rockingham and Strafford part of the "Boston MSA."  This includes the cities of Manchester, Nashua and Portsmouth.  This is where most of the economic opportunity in the state is located, since the other 80% of the state rural.

If we could split the NH part from the MA part, I suspect these cities would compare very favorably to those in the "small cities" index.

Here's the completely useless data (at least for our purposes) for "Boston" from the "big cities" index:

City:     Boston, MA
CoB:      149
JobGrth:  96
Edu:      5
Pop:      6,099
Rank:     54

[stpeter]

I agree that these numbers can be misleading, and are at best semi-useful. E.g., Wyoming has only two cities on the list because, well, it has only two cities. NH is off the list because its cities are officially part of the Boston MSA even though Manchester and Portsmouth are just as far from Boston as Cheyenne is from Denver (at least in terms of drive time). Given the large list of 168 cities, I'd say that anything above 40 or even 20 is suspect. Look at those 3 Maine towns at 151, 155, and 160 on cost of doing business -- bad news for would-be entrepreneurs! Same for Burlington, VT at 146. The rankings for WY and SD are impressive (two cities each in the top 5 on cost of doing business, which is probably the most objective measure). SD may deserve another look, though I still think WY trumps it on population, political culture, and much more.

[Zxcv]

SD does well in all 3 of our comprehensive economic indices (taking 1st place in one, 2nd on another and 3rd place in the third). So its showing here is no surprise at all.

Where SD flops is in personal freedoms.  

So North Dakota (with probably the worst economy in the United States) has 3 cities that made the cut...

Just goes to show you, having a successful business has a lot more factors affecting it than just regulatory friendliness. If you want to make a pile of money, locate your business in the Bay Area or Boston. Just hire a lawyer first    and get a physician to take care of the ulcers you will get    

With the Internet, there is starting to be less need (at least in certain areas of the market) to have a million people within driving distance, to support your business.

[Karl]

... Look at those 3 Maine towns at 151, 155, and 160 on cost of doing business -- bad news for would-be entrepreneurs! ...

Of course there's a flip side to that coin -- the revenue of doing business.  I can open up a pretzel stand at the the North Pole and pay no taxes whatsover, but business would be real slow.

[Karl]

With the Internet, there is starting to be less need (at least in certain areas of the market) to have a million people within driving distance, to support your business.

This is one of the most exciting aspects of Wyoming and other low-cost states, in that it is a good place to operate internet-based and intellectual property-based businesses, so long as you don't need too many specialized employees.

On a side, I have two different employment plans: one for Wyoming and one for New Hampshire.  In Wyoming, I plan to pursue one of my long-held dreams of creating computer games, partly out of desire, but partly out of my belief that I'll have a much more difficult time finding a job I'll enjoy.  In New Hampshire, I'll go more traditional, finding another job as a software engineer.  Wyoming does present a far greater personal risk for me.

[Hank]

All Right!!!

South Dakota and Wyoming take the top four places!!

Sorted by Cost of Business Rank.
1 Casper   WY
2 Cheyenne   WY
3 Sioux Falls   SD
4 Rapid City   SD

[larry]

Hi Folks,

I don't wanna be nit picky, but it seems with many FSP cities
in the Forbes top twenty, the title for this thread was a bit
overly selective??  Oh well, I'd *maybe* have done the same.

With little comment that it was noticed, Pocatello, ID is on the list -
number 19.

I have a much more important thing on my mind, though.

Did I understand it to be written that no New Hampshire cities made
the list because they are considered to be part of the Greater
Boston Metro Area?

Good Gawd, somebody clear that up for me, eh?  

With a neighbor like that, with a blurred border, the only way you'd
ever get this Idahoan to NH is in handcuffs.  If my interpertation of
what I read is accurate, or even close to it, I cannot, for the life
of me, understand why NH is not flat on the bottom of the list in
all FSPer's eyes, even those in NH.

Major Metro Areas are the last damned place we want to be close
to!!

Can sombody clear this up for me, one way or another?

libertarian larry

[BobW]

Hi Larry,

You'd probably move to New Hampshire if Hillary placed a ring of Title 8A housing around your town or if Giuliani 's "horse trading" flooded Idaho with Alberta and British Columbia potatoes.

Boston is the economic capital of New Hampshire but Concord runs the place.  New Hampshire knows how to keep out the undesirables by keeping them preoccupied with vacations on Cape Cod and Long Island Sound.  

Seattle is the economic capital of Alaska with  Anchorage not even being the seat of government.

Anchorage is a major metro city for the region.

Anchorage sure beats California's Imperial Valley and Viriginia's Eastern Shore.

Rural living isn't the issue - and I live in the country.

BobW

[larry]

Bob,

Maybe you're right.  I didn't stick around long enough to try to
understand your somewhat obtuse point about alaska/seattle.

What's damned important to me is how close, and how many brainless, propagandized human ants I'm gonna have to rub shoulders with.

Boston, as an attraction for New Hampshire!!!,  ROTFLMAO! and you gave SUUUUCH a weak defense.   We could send out kids to
Haaarvad, eh?!

Crimeinee, dunno why we've not already picked NY City, or WA, DC,
with a BS argument like that.

Like somebody said, America starts west of the Mississippi.

You Eastern "ant hill" types blow my mind!

Sincerely (truly, just speaking my heart),

libertarian larry

[BobW]

Hi libertarian larry,

Actually your paragraph 2 gets my support - although this isn't what the FSP is about, from my limited reading.  Im a newcomer here as an observer and commentator; not a porc as of now.

I operate under the 500 mile rule. I must be outside a radius of 500 miles of Cambridge professors and Boston attorneys to keep of sound mind.  

I'm an Easterner but have lived all over with half of my time in Asia.  Still, back east here I'm on 10 acres but amexploring a move "out West".  California is west of the Mississippi and I must contest that it's  called part of the US. (Do you westrn guys wear regimental stripe ties or George Will bow ties so as not to appear as a tourist?).

On a more serious note; 2 of my models, ie recent historical examples on how others moved ref a situation as described on this site relate to NYC and Washington, DC.

BobW

[Robert H.]

I don't wanna be nit picky, but it seems with many FSP cities
in the Forbes top twenty, the title for this thread was a bit
overly selective??  Oh well, I'd *maybe* have done the same.

Well, I originally chose the title for this thread out of regard for the fact that so many here seem to think that Wyoming would be the best choice if it were not for the notion that "we'd all starve there."  The high rankings of those two major Wyoming cities is another strong indicator that there is opportunity in Wyoming, and further, that there is a great foundation there for creating even more opportunity.  I believe Wyoming to be our best "ground floor" state.

South Dakota came in very strongly (it's also ranked No. 1 in the nation by the Small Business Survival Index 2002), and Missoula, Montana came in with a high score as well, as the data in the above posts demonstrates.

So, I really chose the title of the thread as a means of grabbing attention to debunk what I believe is a false notion.  That done, I'll change the title to something more neutral.