Wednesday, February 12, 2014

What Makes Entrepreneurs Choose a Place to Start a Business?

This article in Atlantic Cities, written by Richard Florida, provides the argument that Texas Democrats need to make to the business community concerning how to create a real "Texas Miracle." Spoiler alert: Low taxes and business-friendly policies are at the bottom of the list!


  • . . .[W]hat really attracts innovative entrepreneurs who create these economy-boosting companies?
  • The answers: talented workers, and the quality of life that the educated and ambitious have come to expect – not the low-tax, favorable-regulation approach that many state and local governments tout. [emphasis added]
  • These are the findings in a new report from Endeavor Insight, the research department of the non-profit Endeavor, which focuses on fostering and mentoring "high-impact" entrepreneurs. Based on surveys and interviews with 150 founders of some of the country's fastest-growing companies, the report answers the basic question, "what do the best entrepreneurs want in a city?" It offers basic evidence that cities should focus on factors and conditions that attract the talented, educated workers that fast-growing entrepreneurial enterprises need.
  • Entrepreneurs look for talented workers and the amenities that these workers like.
  • Looking at this sample of America's most successful new businesses, Endeavor identified two fundamental patterns. For one, size matters. These top business-creators gravitated towards cities with at least a million residents in the metro area. This offered the scale and diverse array of offerings needed to attract talent. A city also needs to be able to appeal to the young and the restless. The entrepreneurs surveyed were a highly mobile bunch when they first started out. They moved often and easily in the early phases of their careers, following personal ties or certain lifestyle amenities while also seeking the right environment to launch their enterprises. But eighty percent of respondents had lived in their current city for at least two years before launching their companies, meaning that cities had to catch them early. And once they started their first company, these business leaders rarely moved. So attracting this mobile group at an early age is key.
  • The report then dug deeper into exactly what these entrepreneurs reported as the most important part of their location choices. The top rated factor by far was access to talent. Nearly a third of those surveyed mentioned it as a key factor in their decisions for where to live and work (many specifically prized access to technically trained workers). Entrepreneurs explained that they proactively sought out the places that educated and ambitious workers want to be.
  • Perhaps even more interesting from the perspective of urban policy are the location factors that did not make the cut – those that high-growth entrepreneurs found to be of little consequence in their location decisions. At the very bottom of the list were taxes and business-friendly policies, which are, unfortunately, exactly the sorts of things so many states and cities continue to promote as silver bullets. Just 5 percent of the respondents mentioned low taxes as being important, and a measly 2 percent named other business-friendly policies as a factor in their location decisions.
  • To drive this point home, Endeavor tracked more than 100 of the most common descriptive words that entrepreneurs used to answer the question, “Why did you choose to found your company in the city that you did?” Tax doesn’t make the top 50, falling below "rent," "park," "restaurants," and "schools." In fact, it barely manages to edge out the word "girlfriend." Of the top ten most popular words, "lived," "live," and "living" all make the cut. Talent takes the first slot.
  • The report’s conclusion is clear, and I agree. “The magic formula for attracting and retaining the best entrepreneurs is this,” they explain: “a great place to live plus a talented pool of potential employees, and excellent access to customers and suppliers.”

Sunday, February 9, 2014

Primaried House Republicans: Latest Financial Reports



How are the primaried House Republican incumbents faring in the battle for their seats? Very well, thank you. The reports for the January 1, 2014 to January 23, 2014 period show the incumbents outraising and outspending their primary election challengers. They also overwhelm them in cash-on-hand. The figures are in the table below: 

30 Days Prior to Election Report 1/1/14 to 1/23/14
30 Days Prior to Election Report 1/1/14 to 1/23/14
District
Incumbent
Raised
Loans
Expenditures
COH
Challenger
Raised
Loans
Expenditures
COH
1
George Lavender
$5,400

$25,394
$80,058
Gary VanDeaver
$5,000

$3,674
$10,951
4
Lance Gooden
$23,725

$49,675
$51,189
Stuart Spitzer
$350

$16,062
$7,583
6
Matt Schaeffer
$24,255

$29,737
$44,100
Skip Ogle
$56,175

$92,412
$28,368
8
Byron Cook
$22,000

$33,535
$639,039
Bobby Vickery
$0

$0
$7,743
11
Travis Clardy
$24,906
$60,000
$20,388
$85,701
Tony Sevilla
$300

$275
$25
12
Kyle Kacal
$6,400

$9,732
$55,495
Timothy Delasandro
$4,007

$2,974
$2,210
18
John Otto
$73,674

$15,084
$530,460
Terry Holcomb
$2,995

$3,860
$1,414
55
Ralph Sheffield
$13,250

$57,763
$92,843
Molly S. White
$9,370

$955
$7,081
59
J.D. Sheffield
$40,501
$55,586
$27,638
$103,276
Danny Pelton
$5,792

$191
$12,327






Howard Ray
$1,500

$907
$568
60
Jim Keffer
$48,015

$71,375
$330,341
Cullen Crisp
$15,215
$25,000
$26,664
$30,215
64
Myra Crownover
$7,600

$25,456
$203,095
Read King
$3,832

$5,521
$5,262
71
Susan King
$2,579

$15,301
$495,112
Issac M. Castro
$3,605

$725
$7,705
72
Drew Darby
$26,368

$11,367
$538,034
Shannon Thomason
$945

$1,255
$448
83
Charles Perry
$71,370

$97,042
$88,433
Steve Massengale
$17,700
$50,000
$6,255
$78,428
92
Jonathan Strickland
$49,228
$125,000
$141,647
$127,040
Andy Cargile
$37,104
$15,000
$26,784
$5,386
94
Diane Patrick
$13,657

$37,404
$75,032
Tony Tinderholt
$10,100
$10,798
$11,774
$9,600
102
Stefani Carter
$44,396

$89,617
$133,459
Adryana Boyle
$10,280

$5,987
$0






Sam Brown
$21,490

$34,398
$19,573






Linda Koop
$7,335

$21,676
$38,634
105
Linda Harper Brown
$43,530
$50,447
$30,074
$59,135
Rodney Anderson
$1,511
$70,000
$2,469
$73,669
112
Angie Chen Button
$16,240

$13,774
$405,099
Jared Patterson
$5,195

$10,947
$10,602
115
Bennett Ratliff
$44,225
$80,000
$35,498
$188,037
Matt Rinaldi
$16,926
$26,408
$21,742
$13,263
134
Sarah Davis
$19,529

$56,449
$169,698
Bonnie Parker
$1,800
$20,000
$3,297
$9,183
150
Debbie Riddle
$6,250

$5,475
$62,584
Tony Noun
$0
$110,000
$10,262
$33,228

AVERAGE
$28,504
$74,207
$40,883
$207,148

$9,541
$36,356
$12,443
$16,539

On average, incumbents raised three times what challengers raised in contributions during the reporting period. Incumbents also spent three times what challengers spent during the period. Several incumbents had large outstanding loans—Strickland, Ratliff, Clardy, J.D. Sheffield, and Harper Brown. Among the challengers, Noun and Anderson had large outstanding loans.