What's on Third?

I made a statement to the city council that was a bit of an exaggeration that I must correct. I stated that businessmen “want to know what is the expense of doing business in that community and that is solely determined by taxes and regulations.”

That simply is not true. There are other factors. Taxes and regulations are the main determining factor in the field of moving businesses. And those communities and states that have the highest taxes and most restrictive regulation will draw the fewest businesses and jobs. Those communities and states with the lowest taxes and lenient regulations will draw the most businesses and jobs.

But there are other factors. But what are they? What’s third?

Size of the community is a factor. More people equals more customers and a better shot at qualified workers.

Natural resources will be a factor. It might be hard to open up a bait shop in the desert. Furriers will sell more coats in the Snow Belt than in the Sun Belt.

Distance from the I-System makes a difference as more good are shipped by truck.

The aldermen are right. There are other factors. I stand corrected. But how do these thing compare to taxes and regulations? On all businesses across the board?

As a major force affecting the ebb and flow of businesses in and out of a community or State, nothing comes close to affecting it as much as do taxes and regulations.

People follow jobs. The City of Racine has the advantage over surrounding communities with its low rents and housing costs. So there will be people who stay in Racine while working outside of the City. That means the city of Racine can lose more jobs than the surrounding communities and not have as many people move.

So when the City is the only community in the County of Racine to actually lose population, it must be losing one heluva lot of jobs.

After talking to many of the aldermen about this subject of taxes and regulations versus jobs versus population shifts, I get the impression that none of them understand this concept. Let’s put it like this: I haven’t talked to one yet that does.

I think I know why: If tax/regulation/job postulate is true, that makes them largely responsible for controlling the ebb and flow of jobs in and out of the City.

And considering it has mostly been and ebb in and a flow out, well, I guess if I was an alderman I wouldn’t want to agree with that postulate either.