Doortofreeside t1_jeare0m wrote
Reply to comment by DeliPaper in A new report found that Mass. has the highest GDP per capita in the country and is among the states least dependent on federal dollars. by truthseeeker
Boston is the economic engine for the entire state.
If that money wasn't in Boston then MA would be a lot poorer
DeliPaper t1_jears7h wrote
The economic engine of Norway was mineral wealth. But by investing the money wisely in other sectors, they now have far more sources of income.
If a minute amount of that money went to developing Springfield, Pittsfield, and Worcester as independent cities with their own economic engines instead of payong for ever-scarcer land in Boston, imagine the possibilities.
whoeve t1_jeaydfr wrote
Are you trying to equate mineral wealth to an entire CITY? You know Boston does a lot of different things, right?
DeliPaper t1_jeaymrr wrote
It does, but it's primary issue is geography. It's too big to continue to be what it is.
whoeve t1_jeaz2xm wrote
Too big? What? For what it is? A city? What does that even mean?
DeliPaper t1_jeazoph wrote
People can't afford housing in Boston but can afford housing in Worcester. What if you relieve the pressure on Boston by developing Worcester. Perhaps even Springfield.
NMS-KTG t1_jeb70li wrote
Then Worcester would become more expensive genius
DeliPaper t1_jeb7abt wrote
Ah, but peoplencould live and work there. Maybe not miss valuable moments with their kids because they're stuck in traffic at 730PM
whoeve t1_jeb1q39 wrote
If people couldn't afford housing the prices would come down.
DeliPaper t1_jeb2241 wrote
Not quite how the market works. What it actually does is inflate pay, which ripples along the chain and further inflates pay umtil sole services are priced out. And prices go up everywhere else. I know people who commute from Palmer to Boston daily because housing in Boston is too expensive
whoeve t1_jeb2btr wrote
I don't know what that has to do with development in Worcester or other cities, however. I also don't know how the state governs development in Boston but not in Worcester.
DeliPaper t1_jeb2qyh wrote
>I don't know what that has to do with development in Worcester or other cities, however.
You think they want to commute 2-3 hours each way while paying hefty tolls because I-90 is the only viable road every day? If their need for work could be handled by Worcester or Springfield, it would dramatically improve their lives.
>I also don't know how the state governs development in Boston but not in Worcester.
Whenever any policy is up for discussion, they choose to pursue Boston's wants and desires over everyone else's needs, which is how eleven gotten into this pickle to begin with.
whoeve t1_jeb6r59 wrote
Can you point to some specifics concerning this particular thing? IE, when the state has passed policies that make it so businesses have to develop in Boston instead of those other places?
DeliPaper t1_jeb74x9 wrote
Shutting down S&W because people around Boston hate guns is the most obvious recent one. But truly, it goes all the way back to the time they bought greenbacks for pennies on the dollar from farmers because they knew the feds were about to pay them out.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments