Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 ... 15   Go Down

Author Topic: More and other criteria to weigh states with  (Read 141564 times)

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5724
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #90 on: February 07, 2003, 04:53:05 pm »

Gun-friendly peaceable journey laws are part of the construction of the gun control variable on the State Data page.  Also, Vermont does have a gun-friendly peaceable journey law (it's coded "0" on your table).
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

anarchicluv

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 397
  • Semper Liber
    • Strike The Root
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #91 on: February 13, 2003, 08:56:13 pm »

I think something like this may be posted elsewhere, but I found this on a surveyor's bulletin board tonight:

Best and worst states to run a small business
Posted By John Giles on 10/11/2002 at 11:48 PM
The top 10

1. Nevada

2. Florida

3. Texas

4. Alabama

5. (tie) Virginia, Arizona

7. Tennessee

8. Colorado

9. South Carolina

10. Georgia

Close behind: New Hampshire, Delaware, Maryland, Utah

And the bottom 10:

50. Iowa

49. Maine

48. New Mexico

47. New York

46. Montana

45. North Dakota

44. Nebraska

43. Vermont

42. (tie) West Virginia, Rhode Island, Hawaii

On the bubble: Minnesota

Here is the link:

http://www.bcentral.com/articles/harper/141.asp?cobrand=msn&LID=3800

Reading through the link, I also found that the Small Business Survival Committee (SBSC) and Cognetics ranked the states differently.  I have pasted the info from the link below.  Sorry if I duplicated info that's already out there in the forums.

Jeremy

For the record, this composite ranking diverges somewhat from those by the Small Business Survival Committee (SBSC) and Cognetics.

The top 10 states for conducting small business according to the SBSC survival index: South Dakota, Nevada, Wyoming, Texas, Florida, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Washington, Mississippi, Alabama.

The Cognetics top 10: Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, Delaware, Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama.

At the bottom of the heap, starting with No. 50, according to the SBSC: West Virginia, Vermont, New York, Iowa, Rhode Island, California, New Mexico, Minnesota, Maine, Hawaii.

And Cognetics 10 worst, starting with No. 50: Maine, New York, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Iowa, Alaska.

Yes, there are notable disparities in the way the two lists treat individual states. For example, while South Dakota is deemed by the SBSC to have the most business-friendly of all state governments, the lack of entrepreneurial activity in that state puts it near the bottom of Cognetics' list. Clearly, regulatory policy is just one of a number of variables entrepreneurs consider when deciding where to locate their businesses.
Logged
If a thousand men were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood.
~Henry David Thoreau

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #92 on: February 15, 2003, 05:25:38 am »

I'm using the SBSI index, but haven't bothered with the Cognetics thing, because there may be lots of reasons other than freedom ones causing low enterpreneurial activity in a state. Maybe I'm wrong on that...

Keith, can you give us the URLs that have the data for the rows you've added? I might want to add a couple of those to my spreadsheet too. I'll send you mine if you want it, I have a lot of extra rows.
Logged

Kelton

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
  • el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad
Superfund sites
« Reply #93 on: February 19, 2003, 10:15:21 am »

The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized to implement the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in all 50 states and U.S. territories. Superfund site identification, monitoring, and response activities are coordinated through state environmental departments.

The National Priorities List (NPL), which is a part of CERCLA is a list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites, identified as candidates for long-term action using money from the Superfund trust fund Sites that contain the worst toxic waste problems are included on the NPL for oversight and clean-up.

If a site does not make it on the NPL, no money from the federal Superfund can be used to help clean it up, although EPA may still be involved in a shorter-term clean-up action.  Public participation in remedial clean-up plans is an integral part of CERCLA. Remedial plans are long term strategies to clean-up the contaminated site. Before a plan can be approved by the government, it must be published, at a minimum, in a major local newspaper. After notice there must be a reasonable opportunity for public comment and an opportunity for a public meeting at or near the facility at issue.

Since public participation is an important step in adopting a remedial action as stated above, and the EPA coordinates its activities with state agencies and state law helps to determine some of the decisions made by the EPA and political maneuvering may dictate whether questionable sites are given priority or not, there is just a little bit more to this list than just pointing out the existence of waste sites in the several candidate states, but it would take a lot of research to determine the extent to this claim.  The following is a list that ranks the states in order by number of actual NPL Superfund sites, it does not take into account how much those sites may actually be affecting the communities surrounding them on any comparison basis except that they were determined bad enough to make it on the NPL.

NH   proposed=1, Final=18, deleted=0

DE   proposed=0, Final=16, deleted=4

MT   proposed=1, Final=14, deleted=0

ME   proposed=0, Final=12, deleted=0

VT   proposed=0, Final=9, deleted=2

ID   proposed=4, Final=6, deleted=3

AK   proposed=0, Final=6, deleted=2

SD   proposed=0, Final=2, deleted=2

WY   proposed=0, Final=2, deleted=1

ND   proposed=0, Final=0, deleted=2
Logged
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #94 on: February 19, 2003, 01:16:04 pm »

Keith, can you give us the URLs that have the data for the rows you've added? I might want to add a couple of those to my spreadsheet too. I'll send you mine if you want it, I have a lot of extra rows.

I got the speed limits from the National Motorists Association
Joe posted the hunting stuff
the fireworks stuff is on the litmus test thread
medical pot came from some pro-pot website
someone posted the peaceable jouney laws

please send me your stuff, thanks
« Last Edit: June 27, 2003, 02:12:58 am by FreedomRoad »
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Superfund sites
« Reply #95 on: February 19, 2003, 01:17:21 pm »

The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized to implement the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in all 50 states and U.S. territories. Superfund site identification, monitoring, and response activities are coordinated through state environmental departments.

The National Priorities List (NPL), which is a part of CERCLA is a list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites, identified as candidates for long-term action using money from the Superfund trust fund Sites that contain the worst toxic waste problems are included on the NPL for oversight and clean-up.

Can you tell us what you think this report means and how it relates to the FSP?
Logged

DanTheTileMan

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 71
  • Scorpion King!
Re:Superfund sites
« Reply #96 on: February 19, 2003, 01:59:09 pm »

The following is a list that ranks the states in order by number of actual NPL Superfund sites, it does not take into account how much those sites may actually be affecting the communities surrounding them on any comparison basis except that they were determined bad enough to make it on the NPL.

NH   proposed=1, Final=18, deleted=0

DE   proposed=0, Final=16, deleted=4

MT   proposed=1, Final=14, deleted=0

ME   proposed=0, Final=12, deleted=0

VT   proposed=0, Final=9, deleted=2

ID   proposed=4, Final=6, deleted=3

AK   proposed=0, Final=6, deleted=2

SD   proposed=0, Final=2, deleted=2

WY   proposed=0, Final=2, deleted=1

ND   proposed=0, Final=0, deleted=2

Any idea what this all means in layman terms?  Are you trying to make a point about the states with the greatest problems; the states that are going after the most federal money, instead of the responsible parties; or is it both?  Idaho seemed to have the numbers most different from the rest (NO zeros).  Maybe you can use that in your explanation.

Thanks,

Dan the Man
Logged
To win without risk, is to conquer without glory - Unknown

Kelton

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
  • el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad
Re:Superfund sites
« Reply #97 on: February 19, 2003, 08:02:23 pm »

Any idea what this all means in layman terms?  
Can you tell us what you think this report means and how it relates to the FSP?

OK.  Sorry for being a little erudite on the whole matter.
This can basically be viewed as livability factor; i.e., color of sunsets, density of forests, humidity, composition of soils, and so forth.  In this case, it may be a big thing for some, high-priority toxic waste Superfund sites in your back-yard.

I tried to explain that sometimes, political factors influence the process that make Superfund sites.  Every so often, it is junk-science that makes mountains out of molehills and creates a Superfund site.  Sometimes, that is, and if I had eighteen months to analyze each case against established toxicology standards and analyze archived news and all available information, I might be able to identify which sites are merely semi-dangerous and which ones are truly worthy of such massive expenditures of federal money.  If I could do this, or such comprehensive analysis were available, it might be a good test of the political climate in our states, but I don't have eighteen months and I don't know of any such comprehensive analysis, so I just offer the numbers as they are.

There are three different numbers to look at in what I just posted,
-Proposed National Priority List Superfund sites under review
-Currently listed Superfund sites that are being treated, or Final sites.
-Sites that are either treated or no longer meet the criteria for being listed as NPL Superfund sites.

The most important may be proposed and final, and if we add the two together, we can see how many such sites that exist in each state:
(Again, it is not necessarily a complete snapshot, as these are not always based on sound science, so don't take this as a measurement of there being an absense of critically toxic sites, or the over-abundance of toxic sites, it just simply a count of "scary" places as determined by the EPA bureaucracy process, and places where the fed is currently pouring lots of money to clean- up, or is forcing private entities to pay for the clean-up)

NH = 19
DE = 16
MT = 15
ME = 12
ID = 10
VT =  9
AK =  6
SD =  2
WY =  2
ND =  0
Logged
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #98 on: February 19, 2003, 09:24:23 pm »

State area may be of interest in this connection. 19 sites in NH, and 16 in DE, are a lot of disasters (imagined or real) packed into little states. Of course the sites themselves may be miniscule or not such a big deal as you say, Joe.

I wonder if this superfund business got into the Morgan Quitno index?
« Last Edit: February 19, 2003, 09:25:24 pm by Zxcv »
Logged

exitus

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • To face freedom, turn 180º from tyranny.
    • Mercados libres y paz: El Cato Institute
Components of Population Change
« Reply #99 on: March 01, 2003, 11:12:56 am »

Here's the basic data:
Quote
Components of Population Change by state 1990 to 1999 Chart No. 22. U.S. Census 2001 sec 01
(In thousands)

AK  99  births,  22d,  9 international,  9 federal, (24) domestic, 69  tot.
DE  98  births,  58d,  9 international,  2 federal, 35, 87  tot.
ID  166 births, 78d,  18 international, 2 federal, 136, 245 tot.
ME  138 births, 108d, 4 international,  2 federal, (7), 25  tot.
MT  103 births, 69d,  3 international,  2 federal, 48, 84  tot.
NH  142 births, 84d,  7 international, .5 federal, 30, 92  tot.
ND  79 births, 54d,  5 international,  3 federal, (37) domestic, (5) tot.
SD  98 births, 63d,  5 international,  2 federal, (3), 37  tot.
VT  67 births, 45d,  5 international, .5 federal, 6, 31  tot.
WY  60 births, 33d,  2 international,  1 federal, (4), 26  tot.
Some curious calculations I made from this data:

______________________________________________________________________________


1. Tot. births to net total in- migration, 1990 to 1999 (ratio)

VT 5.8 births to 1 net in-migration resident
NH 3.8 births to 1 net in-migration resident
DE 2.8 births to 1 net in-migration resident
MT 1.09 births to 1 net in-migration resident
ID 1.06 births to 1 net in-migration resident
___

Tot. births by net total out- migration (ratio)
ME 138 births to 1 net out-migration
WY 60 births to 1 net   out-migration
SD 24.5 births to 1 net out-migration
AK 16.5 births to 1 net out-migration
ND 2.7 births to 1 net out-migration

________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Ratio of tot. migration to the total of number of persons created by birth less deaths.


First group, migration rate higher than increase by total lives added by natural vital statisics.

ID 1.8 in-migrants to 1 natural increase
MT 1.6 in-migrants to 1 natural increase
DE 1.2 in-migrants to 1 natural increase


Second group, natural increase in population is greater than that by migration.

NH 1.5 natural increase to 1 in-migrant
VT 1.9 natural increase to 1 in-migrant
SD 8.6 net. natural increase to 1 in-migrant


Third group, natural increase in population is the source of population growth

ME 30 natural increases to 1 out-migrant
WY 27 natural increases to 1 out-migrant
AK 4.3 natural increases to 1 out-migrant

Fourth, North Dakota, a state in population decline

ND, birth rate is almost, but not quite enough to compensate for deaths and out-migrants.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
« Last Edit: March 20, 2003, 01:32:28 pm by exitus »
Logged
". . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue” -- U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

exitus

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • To face freedom, turn 180º from tyranny.
    • Mercados libres y paz: El Cato Institute
Percentage of population, by age
« Reply #100 on: March 01, 2003, 11:24:53 am »

Percentage of population, computed from Census Chart 1a and 5a

School-age children 5-17

AK 23.7%  (AK is highest in nation)
ID 20.6%
SD 20.2%
WY 20.0%
MT 19.4%
NH 19.2%
ND 19.1%
VT 18.0%
ME 17.8%
DE 17.5%

Percentage of population, 18-64 computed from Census

AK 70.8
VT 69.7
DE 69.5
NH 68.7
US 68.5
WY 68.5
ME 68.2
ID 68.0
MT 67.4
ND 66.2
SD 65.3

Percentage of population, 65 and above

ND 14.7
SD 14.5
ME 14.0
MT 13.3
DE 13.0
US 12.7
VT 12.3
NH 12.1
WY 11.5
ID 11.4
AK  5.5 (lowest in nation)
« Last Edit: March 01, 2003, 11:40:28 am by Éxitos »
Logged
". . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue” -- U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5724
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #101 on: March 01, 2003, 11:37:36 am »

Alaska's low percentage of elderly could be a very good thing.  The elderly tend to be fearful of risk and therefore vote against parties/candidates supporting substantial change.  (This is from standard political science research.)  Also, a high % of elderly tends to be associated with a large health care sector, which brings with it a lot of government regulation and creates dull, low-wage jobs (medical billing, scheduling, etc.) that few of us Free-Staters would want to take.  The Asheville area is a good example of this.  Probably 75% of the new jobs I've seen in the last 2 months have been $8 an hour jobs in medical offices, dealing with red tape, paper work, and data entry.  Western North Carolina is, not coincidentally, a hot retirement spot.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2003, 11:38:45 am by JasonPSorens »
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

exitus

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • To face freedom, turn 180º from tyranny.
    • Mercados libres y paz: El Cato Institute
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #102 on: March 01, 2003, 12:01:26 pm »

Quote
Alaska's low percentage of elderly could be a very good thing.
. . .

Not to mention those on the Social Security Check,

Demographics
As of April 2001:

Social Security Recipients:

        AK 65 and over 4%; Soc Sec 11%
        WY 65 and over 10%; Soc Sec 23%
       NH 65 and over 11%; Soc Sec 23%
       VT 65 and over 12%; Soc Sec 25%
         DE 65 and over 12%; Soc Sec 26%
        ID 65 and over 12%; Soc Sec 27%
        ME 65 and over 13%; Soc Sec 28%
        MT 65 and over 13%; Soc Sec 28%
        ND 65 and over 14%; Soc Sec 29%
       SD 65 and over 15%; Soc Sec 30%
Some Other Statistics:

Families:                                                                 % receiving public assistance:
ID Married 62%, Marr/Chdn 32%, Sngl/Chdn 8%             AK Pub Asst 8%
NH Married 60%, Marr/Chdn 30%, Sngl/Chdn 7%            ME Pub Asst 8%
WY Married 60%, Marr/Chdn 31%, Sngl/Chdn 8%            MT Pub Asst 7%
ND Married 59%, Marr/Chdn 30%, Sngl/Chdn 6%            VT Pub Asst 7%
SD Married 59%, Marr/Chdn 29%, Sngl/Chdn 7%            SD Pub Asst 7%
ME Married 58%, Marr/Chdn 28%, Sngl/Chdn 8%            ND Pub Asst 6%
MT Married 58%, Marr/Chdn 28%, Sngl/Chdn 8%            Wy Pub Asst 5%
DE Married 56%, Marr/Chdn 26%, Sngl/Chdn 9%             DE Pub Asst 5%
VT Married 56%, Marr/Chdn 28%, Sngl/Chdn 8%             ID Pub Asst 5%
AK Married 56%, Marr/Chdn 34%, Sngl/Chdn 11%           NH Pub Asst 4%
Logged
". . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue” -- U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

exitus

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • To face freedom, turn 180º from tyranny.
    • Mercados libres y paz: El Cato Institute
Litigiousness
« Reply #103 on: March 11, 2003, 02:22:44 pm »



The Overall Index of State Litigiousness- place rank among 50 states based on 11 criteria, including political campaigning by judges, from the data contained in the Economic Freedom in America's 50 States: A 1999 Analysis,  by John Byars, Bobby McCormick and Bruce Yandle

UT 50   :)

ND 48
SD 46
ID 43
WY 38
MT 35
AK 26
VT 24
ME 20
NH 8
DE 5

RI #1  :P

Litigiousness is just one of well over one hundred different indexes created to compare the states in this report, I do wish that they would do this report again in the near future.  Their research really 'kicks butt' over a lot of what we amateurs have come up with so far.
Logged
". . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue” -- U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

exitus

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • To face freedom, turn 180º from tyranny.
    • Mercados libres y paz: El Cato Institute
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #104 on: March 11, 2003, 02:56:22 pm »

A closer look at the 10 different criteria that was used for ranking of litigiousness in this report reveals that some are kind of useless for our comparisons, the "Amount Paid by State's Largest City to Settle Liability Claims and Judgements" really seemed to weigh heavily on some states; and there were many criteria too similar for our use.  There does seem to be two that are at least interesting for our use of comparison:

Auto accidents where claimant represented by attorney:

ND 14.5 (lowest in the country) :)
SD 15
MT 20.6
WY 22.2
AK 23.3%
ID 27.8
VT 31.0
ME 33.9
NH 44.8
DE 61.1%


MD 65.7% (Highest in the country) :P

Members of State Trial Lawyers Association per 100000 Pop

AZ 16.4 (lowest in the country)

ID 29.2
AK 36.4
ND 38.5
VT 49.4
MT 53.2
DE 53.5
NH 61.3
WY 70.5
ME 73.3
SD 124.5 (Highest in the country)


I do not wish to be overly- disparaging of attorneys, there are many great libertarian attorneys who we should all be thankful for, and in a libertarian society, justice is served more through civil claims and property rights than any of thousands of silly laws and ordinances trying to make criminals of us all. However, it must be remembered that most trial attorney groups today actually work and lobby for more laws, support statist politicians, support junk-science and spurious claims while actually working to destroy the free market.  The city of Las Vegas is almost completely without orthopedic surgeons, thanks to trial lawyers.  
Logged
". . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue” -- U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 ... 15   Go Up