Beginning things today with these two quotes by two very different men, is meant as a contemplative catalyst for the query that I developed after hearing a news piece on the rise of self-publishing.
Nowadays, many creativity fueled industries are under growing amounts of pressure, much of which is the result of changing preference of medium (physical versus digital) or apathy toward proper compensation (illegal downloading/sharing), and the ability to stay relevant and keep doing what one enjoys, all without going broke or having to take on 3-5 jobs, is less common but more difficult than in times past. Mass streaming services in the music industry have helped to even out the rampant illegality to music acquisition since subscribing and constant/varied song access is constantly made quicker and more cost efficient (for the consumer) than hunting on a rogue site.
Additionally, musicians also have been turning toward the DIY album release method for years now and the traditional record label/manager format is not so much the ultimate endgame it was before. Affordable and portable technology has helped musicians turn just about any room into a mini studio for putting together a decent demo, EP or even a full album and with outlets like CD Baby and Bandcamp making self-selling their primary service, the idea of putting out your own record is no less applaudable than if a label helps put one together. Some might even say DIY is more praise-worthy, simply for the extra layer of footwork that is required with the absence of a team on contract.
All of this out in the open, what about the idea of self-publishing mentioned above? Well, according to a recent segment from CBS Sunday Morning, effectively titled, "The Rise of Self-Publishing," it seems more literary creators are also shifting to their respective versions of carving out individual paths and selling their own books. Like music, this methodology is not entirely hot off the shelf, so to speak. As the segment first describes, authors like Richard Paul Evans, who wrote the short book, "The Christmas Box," put this book out himself 20 years back, originally producing only 20 prints before it gained popularity and best seller status through manual sharing and word of mouth, "finally" warranting a major publisher's attention and prompting many, many more copies to be made.
The segment continues on to include perspective and opinion from another figure in the book industry, Lev Grossman, a book critic for Time Magazine, wherein he openly states he "pays more attention to books if they come from a traditional publisher [but that] a lot of stuff gets published on both sides that shouldn't." This could certainly be a shared view for what stocks the music shelves as well.
Nevertheless, at least for some musicians, self-recording and releasing records is a decision made because their music is only one of several workable vehicles for exposure, popularity and profit. Music files and records themselves have diminished in position from being the endgame product, possibly as much as labels have diminished from being the endgame achievement and instead, musicians can focus more on other avenues like live performance and band merchandise.
Authors on the other hand, while a bigger profit margin is preferable to some, books still risk the same types of stealing that music does and stealing has hardly gone away for good. Minus those that suddenly become pop culture trends or book club favorites, (e.g. anything Oprah reads, Twilight, (and even worse) 50 Shades…) is there anything the book industry can fashion for itself in parallel to the live gigs of the music biz? Yes, authors do book signings and occasional appearances for book readings but this is hardly a regular factor the way touring is seasonal and ongoing for bands. Merch as well…for those that hold the words of their works as top dog over supplemental products, extraneous items with book logos or character illustrations would be the closest thing to "book merch" that isn't a book itself but not everyone would want to embrace those options and necessarily has book content that can.
These are very open ended queries and thoughts, not one of which I have a definitive "right" answer to, since business models are much like clothing. It suits all people differently and some kinds work better than others. Mostly, pointing all of this out just gives one, especially if that one is in the music business as a creator, pause as to what struggle means and possibly inspires a re-evaluation on where the line of "compromise" versus the line for "selling out," exists. Heck, should there even be a line for selling out anymore, if the goal is °do X for a living° and in order to accomplish that one must interlock with vacillating consumer trends, which then beckon for items or actions that deviate from a creator's original trajectory? Creators form their own sets of personal integrity but consumers dictate if that quality will suffice in the form of only one product, effectively putting a price and quantity on individual philosophy.
Then again, the opening quotes are there for a reason…and maybe some authors just leave things at that.
The full CBS Sunday Morning segment is below.
Your thoughts? Share, challenge and inspire!
"Just beCAUSE" isn't reason for alarm. Or is it?
What's My Age Again, Part II: What the heck is an "adult" anyway?


text:
The Fire Hall No. 1 in Nashville, Tennessee, at 1312 3rd Ave. N., was built in 1936.  It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2008.

It is a -story fire station which was designed to appear residential, with elements of Tudor Revival style.

It has also been known as the "Germantown Fire Hall and as the George W. Swint Sr. Engine Company No. 1.

In 2008, it was owned by Neighborhoods Resource Center, which planned to convert it into offices.

It is located just outside the boundary of the Germantown Historic District, which is also listed on the National Register.

References

Fire stations on the National Register of Historic Places in Tennessee
National Register of Historic Places in Davidson County, Tennessee
Tudor Revival architecture in the United States
Buildings and structures completed in 1936

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Brooks Firestone is not going out with a whimper.
Anticipating the likelihood of a victory for self-proclaimed environmentalist candidate Doreen Farr in November, the outgoing 3rd District Santa Barbara County supervisor is using his last few months in office to take full advantage of his working majority.
The supervisors have sent Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a letter supporting offshore drilling and petroleum exploration, and the county's planning commission has put the Miramar Hotel on a faster track and gaveled through a luxury home development on the Gaviota Coast.
Firestone is nobody's fool. If Farr does win the election, it will take some effort by the board to switch positions on these initiatives.
If her opponent, Steve Pappas wins, Firestone will have given the majority a road map for charting a new course for Santa Barbara County.


text:
1,000 People a Day: Why Red States Are Getting Richer and Blue States Poorer
Report Government Regulation
May 5, 2015 32 min read Download Report
Joel Griffith
Research Fellow, Financial Regulations
Joel is a research fellow in the Roe Institute at The Heritage Foundation.
The competition among the states is becoming more intense as businesses become more mobile. Toyota and Boeing are two high-profile employers in America that have crossed state borders because of the policy advantages of one state over another. Toyota moved from high-income-tax California to no-income-tax Texas, and Boeing, based in Washington, a forced-union state, opened a new plant in South Carolina, which has a right-to-work (RTW) law. Texas Governor Rick Perry and California Governor Jerry Brown have openly sparred in recent years about which state is more pro-business. Interstate competition allows governors and legislators to learn from each other about which policies create wealth and which policies diminish wealth inside their borders.
In recent years, governors have generally divided into two competing camps, which we call the "red state model" and the "blue state model," raising the stakes in this interstate competition. The conservative red state model is predicated on low tax rates, right-to-work laws, light regulation, and pro-energy development policies. This policy strategy is now common in most of the Southern states and the more rural and mountain states. Meanwhile, the liberal blue state model is predominantly found in the Northeast, California, Illinois, Minnesota, and, until recently, Michigan and Ohio. The blue states have doubled down on policies that include high levels of government spending, high income tax rates on the rich, generous welfare benefits, forced-union requirements, super-minimum-wage laws, and restrictions on oil and gas drilling.
In no area are the effects of these competing models more evident than in tax policy changes of recent years. California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, and Oregon have raised their income tax rates on "the rich" since 2008.[1] In four of these states, the combined state and local income tax rate exceeds 10 percent, reaching 13.3 percent in California and 12.7 percent in New York.[2] Meanwhile, the "red states" of Arizona, Arkansas,[3] Kansas,[4] Missouri,[5] North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Idaho[6] have cut their tax rates. This has widened the income tax differential between blue states and red states for businesses and upper-income families.
Similarly, red states such as Oklahoma, Texas, and North Dakota have embraced the oil and gas drilling revolution in America. Blue states such as New York, Vermont, Illinois, and California have resisted it. Blue states have raised their minimum wages; red states generally have not.
In this study, which is a summary of our recent book with Rex Sinquefield and Travis Brown, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of States: How Taxes, Energy, and Worker Freedom Will Change the Balance of Power Among States, we examine whether these policy differentials matter and, if so, by how much.
The answer is that the states' policy choices on taxes, regulation, energy policy, labor laws, educational choice, and so forth have a large and in most cases a statistically significant impact on the prosperity of states over each 10-year time frame examined on a rolling basis from 1970 to 2012. There are always exceptions to the rule, but in most cases the red state model is substantially outperforming the blue state model.
We find in particular that two policies matter most. Right-to-work states substantially outperform non–right-to-work states, and states with no or low income taxes have a much better economic record than high-income-tax states.
Taxes. On taxes, we compare the nine states without a personal earned-income tax (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wyoming, New Hampshire, and Tennessee) with the nine states with the highest income taxes (Kentucky, Minnesota, Maryland, Vermont, New Jersey, Oregon, Hawaii, New York, and California).[7] The results are shown in Chart 1:
Americans are voting with their feet to keep more of their income. The nine zero-income-tax states gained an average of 3.7 percent of their population from domestic in-migration from 2003 to 2013, while the highest-income-tax states lost an average of 2.0 percent of their population during the same period. Overall, population growth on an equally weighted basis from 2003 to 2013 was twice as high in the low-income-tax states.[8] In terms of raw population, the nine zero-income-tax states in total gained an average of 830 people per day from domestic migration throughout 2004–2013; meanwhile, the nine highest personal income tax states in total lost an average of 944 people per day from domestic migration.[9] The flow of families from high-tax to low-tax states is unmistakable.
The jobs growth rate was more than double in the zero-income-tax states than in the high-income-tax states, on an equally weighted basis.[10] Businesses such as Toyota are more likely to set up operations in low-tax states. This kind of business relocation to low-tax states is happening routinely and even accelerating.[11] Of the four largest states, from 1990 to June 2014, the jobs growth rate in red states Florida (46 percent) and Texas (65 percent) has been almost triple the jobs growth of blue states California (24 percent) and New York (9 percent).
Interstate migration has resulted in the zero-income-tax states gaining more than 14 percent of their 2009/2010 adjusted gross income from the rest of the nation between the tax filing years 1992/1993 and 2009/2010.[12] Meanwhile, the nine highest income tax states lost 8.8 percent of their 2009/2010 adjusted gross income over the same period.[13]
Right-to-Work Laws. On the effect of right-to-work laws, the same picture comes into sharp focus. A right-to-work law does not prohibit a union, but empowers individual workers to choose whether to join the union (and pay dues for political purposes). As of January 1, 2013, 23 states were right to work and 27 were forced union.[14] Comparing these states' economic performance, we find:
People are moving to right-to-work states. Population growth as an equal-weighted average from 2002 to 2012 was 12.6 percent over the past decade in RTW states and only 6.5 percent in non-RTW states.[15] Over the same decade, the equal-weighted average net domestic in-migration to RTW states was 3 percent, while forced-unionization states realized an equal-weighted loss of 0.9 percent.[16] No doubt much of this population transfer occurred as people moved to where jobs are.
The right-to-work states enjoyed a jobs growth rate more than three times that of the forced-union states. Job growth was up 6.8 percent in RTW states and only 1.9 percent in non-RTW states.[17]
We have examined this same data set for the past four decades, and regardless of the time period measured, the results show the same directional change in favor of right-to-work and no-income-tax states with only some variation in the magnitude of the change.
Our critics deny that these economic forces are in play, and we briefly respond to those critiques below. However, it is noteworthy that New York State, whose politicians in Albany have acted for decades like taxes do not matter, is now running ads around the country about big tax breaks to firms if they move to the Empire State. Apparently, even they now concede that tax policy influences growth. Yet Albany needs to actually change its policies, not just its public relations pitch.
How Interstate Migration Is Changing America
To know the places to bet on in America, one should follow the money—and the moving vans—and the Fortune 500 companies and the venture capital funds that will finance the next Googles and Facebooks. Their movement has a pattern that is based on many dozens of factors, including the quality of the human capital in the state (how well trained and educated the workers are), a state's natural resources (especially energy resources and good farmland), geographical proximity to national and global markets, and the weather (warm weather areas with lots of sunshine are doing better as baby-boomers retire). Many of these factors are outside the control of politicians, especially in the near term.
However, policy decisions make a big difference in a state's attractiveness. Taxes, education policy, right-to-work laws, regulation, pension deficits, and government spending and debt are drivers of migration. This is true now more than ever, in part because the differentials between the states are widening.
Blue states, for example, have been raising their tax rates, while red states are lowering their taxes. Of states that enacted pro-growth tax cuts in 2013,[18] 13 were red states at the time—defined as having a Republican-majority legislature and a Republican governor.[19] Of the remaining four, Iowa and New Mexico had Republican governors while Arkansas and Montana had Republican legislatures. Not a single solidly blue state enacted pro-growth tax cuts in 2013. Twenty Republican governors have proposed tax cuts in 2015.
As a result of policy changes, the 50 states and the hundreds of metropolitan areas constantly move up and down the income elevator. The United States is one large free trade zone, so businesses, people, and capital can move across state borders whenever they wish—although the Obama Administration's National Labor Relations Board has tried to restrict the migration of employers. The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from erecting tariffs on interstate commerce, and the Constitution also protects the rights of Americans to migrate freely between the states. Americans can locate and relocate anywhere and anytime they want in this vast country.
This study measures what might be the most important demographic trend in America: the huge shift of economic resources from blue states to red states. The geographical center of economic and political power in America is shifting right before our eyes—and more dramatically than perhaps at any time in decades. Americans are uprooting themselves and moving to places where there is economic vitality, opportunity, and a high quality of life. The recession slowed this interstate migration pattern, but it will pick up again in the decade to come.
Over the past decade (ending in 2013), roughly 53 million Americans—almost one in six—moved from one state to another[20]—a total greater than the combined populations of Florida, New York, and Illinois.
From another perspective, nearly 15,000 residents moved across state lines each day—mostly away from low-growth states and to the high-growth states. They are voting with their feet for jobs and higher incomes—economic opportunities that are disappearing from some regions of the country while sprouting in others.
Think what this means. We find that each year about $125 billion in purchasing power (adjusted gross income) leaves one state and enters another.[21] For local stores, businesses, and commerce that is a lot of dollars flowing to the winner states. That's a lot of retail sales, tax revenues, home purchases, and investment in the local community and charities.
So Where Is Everyone Headed?
The geographical shift of power from the Northeast to the South is unmistakable. The big winners in this interstate competition for jobs and growth have generally been in Dixie: the Carolinas, Florida, Texas, and Tennessee. The Southwest and mountain region of the country are flying high, too—such as Idaho, the Dakotas, and Arizona. The big losers have been the traditional Rust Belt regions of the Northeast and Midwest. The demoralizing symptoms of economic despair in the declining states—such as Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and New Jersey—include lost population to other states, falling housing values in certain locales, a stagnant tax base, business out-migration, capital flight, high unemployment rates, and less money for schools, roads, and aging infrastructure.
North Dakota. The situation in a state can change quickly. The 2000 Census showed North Dakota's population growth in last place of all states (3,400 people or 0.5 percent over 10 years).[22] In fact, since 1930, the state had lost 6.3 percent of its population.[23] Then, something amazing happened. Thanks to new oil and gas drilling technologies and a favorable regulatory climate, North Dakota has become the second-largest energy-producing state. North Dakota embraced the new innovations, such as fracking and horizontal drilling. One decade later, it is one of the major states importing people and capital.
Beginning in 2003, North Dakota's population began increasing. For the decade ending in 2013, North Dakota ranked 15th in percentage population growth.[24] In 2013, North Dakota had the highest population growth rate in the nation[25] after having wiped out more than 70 years of population losses in the previous decade.
Yes, the geographical advantage of natural resource abundance played a major role in North Dakota's stunning turnaround. But more importantly, North Dakota's residents and political class recognized the opportunity and wisely capitalized on the drilling bonanza, while many more liberal states (such as New York) have turned up their noses to energy production. It is another lesson that policies matter a lot.
Recent Census Bureau data spotlight the migration winners and losers. We have assembled the data for the decade 2003–2012 to get a longer term view of where people are moving.[26]
Chart 2 clearly shows that the red states are growing and the blue states are falling behind. While outliers exist, the pattern is clear. Eight of the top 10 states are red states, seven of the bottom states are blue or purple states as judged by control of state legislative and executive branches.
Of course, sunny California will always have a natural climate advantage over frigid Minnesota. No one should think that Newark, New Jersey, will ever compete on equal footing with Malibu, California, or that Flint, Michigan will ever be as desirable as Palm Beach, Florida. That will not happen. Likewise, oil-rich Texas will always have a natural resources advantage over Rhode Island. Yet compensating differentials such as affordable housing, well-paying jobs, business-friendly laws, and low taxes enable states to overcome natural limitations such as poor climate, geography, or limited resources. Pro-growth policies can change the pace of growth and help to make an otherwise undesirable location desirable.
Growth Versus No-Growth States
Every state, of course, aspires to be a high-octane, high-growth state—a place of destination, not a place where people say with nostalgia that they are "from." But differences in jobs growth rates are not random occurrences. Business growth varies significantly from state to state, in large part due to policy differences. Likewise, neither are long-term domestic migration patterns random. Policies that change the attractiveness of these locales to individuals affect the flow of people from Connecticut to Florida or from California to Nevada. Often, the desire to pursue opportunities in profitable enterprises motivates people to move across the country.
Looking backward on past performance, we list below the top 10 and bottom 10 economic performers from 2002 to 2012 in Table 1.[27]
In this study we investigate the main policy levers that help to explain the income, jobs, and population gains in the high-performing states. In other words, we examine the factors that lawmakers can control: the economic, fiscal, and social policy laws and environment prevailing in their states.
Economic policies matter. This is why many Russians are moving capital to the United States, and the Miami real estate market is feeling the effects. This is also why foreign investment in Argentina has dried up. Failed economic policies along with political instability have fueled the immigration crises on the U.S. southern border over the past years.
We have identified 15 policy variables that have a proven impact on the migration of investment capital and human capital—the basic ingredients of growth—into and out of states. Generally speaking, states that spend less (especially on income-transfer programs) and states that tax less (particularly on productive activities such as working or investing) experience higher growth rates than states that tax and spend more. The 15 factors are:
Highest personal income tax rate,
Corporate income tax rate,
Progressivity of the personal income tax system,
Property tax burden,
Sales tax burden,
Tax burden as a share of income,
Estate tax rate,
Recent tax policy changes,
State and local government debt,
Public employees per 1,000 residents,
State liability system (quality),
State minimum wage,
Workers' compensation costs,
Right-to-work state (Yes or No), and
Tax or expenditure limit (Yes or No).
Table 2 shows our latest forecast of which states, based on how they fare on these policy variables, have the brightest economic outlooks and which have the bleakest outlook.
Most Americans live in the large metropolitan areas. We find that metro areas in pro-growth states are booming. The 10 fastest-growing of the most populous 100 metro areas from 2010 to 2013 were Austin, Raleigh, Charleston, Ft. Meyers, Provo, Houston, San Antonio, Orlando, Denver, and Dallas. Except for Denver, all of these are in low-tax, business-friendly red states. Metro areas dominated by blue-state policies—such as Scranton, New Haven, Cleveland, Dayton, Detroit, Buffalo, Providence, and Rochester—were among the biggest population losers.[28]
The Policies That Matter Most
Which policies are most essential to state population growth and economic growth as measured by gross state product? In our quest to determine what works and what does not work, we conducted an econometric analysis that related population and economic output growth to a series of 12 policy variables, including tax rates, tax burdens, right-to-work laws, and so on. The data used for this statistical study spanned an entire decade and all 50 states. Our goal was to develop a comprehensive analysis of state economic policies as a guide for current and future state government officials.
The two policy variables that matter the most are low income tax rates and right-to-work laws.[29]
Low Income Tax Rates. The highest income tax rate matters because this is the tax rate that business owners, investors, and those with portable wealth pay. California and New York City impose the highest personal income tax rate of up to 13 percent while nine states do not impose any income tax at all. As we learned from Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson, this can be a powerful motivation to move or relocate a business.
Table 3 compares the nine no-income-tax states with the nine highest-income-tax states. While we have more detailed statistical analyses in later chapters of Wealth of States, the eyeball evidence shows a profound difference in economic performance. On average, no-income-tax states experienced double the jobs growth rate, one-fifth faster income growth, and double the population increase compared with the highest-income-tax states.[30]
We find that the negative relationship between high tax rates and net migration into a state is statistically significant. In other words, the likelihood that this result happened by chance is very small. Taxes matter.
Right to Work. The same pattern emerges for right-to-work states. A right-to-work law does not prohibit unions. It simply allows workers the right to join a union or not, and it allows workers who opt out of the union to not pay union dues for political activities. About half the states are right to work, and about half the states have forced-union policies. In recent years Indiana and Michigan, the cradle of unionism in America, converted to right-to-work states. The truth is that unions are losing their power except in the public sector. Only about 11 percent of Americans are in a union today, a 40-year low, and only about 7 percent of private-sector workers are in unions.
How much does it matter if a state is right to work? Chart 3, which analyzes Midwestern states,[31] shows overwhelmingly that right-to-work states have much greater job growth than non–right-to-work states.[32]
Lessons from the Four Biggest States
A big switch in the state population rankings is set to occur. By early 2015, Florida is expected to surpass New York in population because Florida's population has grown at such a rapid pace over the past 30 years while New York's population has been retreating. Only 20 years ago, Texas surpassed New York as the second most populous state. Now the four most populous states are California, 38.3 million; Texas, 26.4 million; New York, 19.7 million; and Florida, 19.6 million.[33]
These four largest states account for about one-third of the U.S. population, so they are critical to America's overall success. It is hard for the U.S. to have a robust economic expansion if these four states are not prospering.
Coincidentally, these four states set up a very convenient natural experiment for our premise that low-tax states and states with relatively limited government interference in the private economy outperform states with the opposite policies. Texas and Florida have been implementing relatively pro-growth fiscal and regulatory policies. Neither Texas nor Florida has an income tax, and both are right-to-work states. By contrast, California and New York have been implementing counterproductive fiscal policies that have eroded their relative economic competitiveness. Both states have among the highest taxes in the nation, and both are not right-to-work.
Texas and Florida have also been growing much faster than the country as a whole, notwithstanding the big hit Florida took during the recession of 2008–2009. From 2003–2013, Texas and Florida saw overall population growth of 20 percent and 15 percent, respectively. Both California and New York experienced growth below the national average at 8.7 percent and 2.5 percent, respectively. While Texas and Florida both gained more than 1 million in domestic migration from 2003 to 2012, California and New York lost more than 1.4 million each during the same decade.[34]
With respect to jobs, Texas and Florida combined have grown at more than twice the pace of California and New York over the past 10 years ending in October 2014 (approximately 14.3 percent vs. 5.6 percent).[35] However, California has made a robust comeback in the past two years. Tax rates went up, but the rate of spending growth in the California budget went way down. A $25 billion budget deficit has been converted into an expected $3.2 billion operating surplus for the 2014–2015 fiscal year.[36] The San Francisco metro area was the ninth-fastest growing region in 2013 in raw numbers,[37] and its unemployment plunged from 10 percent in early 2010 to 4.4 percent in the fall of 2014.[38] However, the statewide unemployment rate of 7.3 percent[39] is still well above the national average. Texas's job creation rate of 14.6 percent over the past five years ending in October 2014 dwarfs California's 9.7 percent. Even Florida, still recovering from the housing bust, eclipsed California with a 9.9 percent growth in jobs.[40]
Some may be tempted to use California's behemoth size as an excuse for its poor growth record. After all, is not high percentage growth harder to achieve in a large state? A few thousand jobs is a much bigger percentage in Delaware than in California. The record in Texas dismisses this excuse: Texas is achieving high percentage growth despite its size. Over the 10-year period beginning in October 2004, job creation exceeded 2.1 million in Texas compared with fewer than 760,000 in California.[41] In fact, data provided by the Joint Economic Committee in August 2014 show that Texas ranks second only to North Dakota in percentage growth of private-sector jobs since February 2010.[42] Although Texas is the second largest state, its jobs creation rate still ranked second nationally in percentage growth. So much for California's "but we're so much larger" excuse.
Overall, for the five-year period ending in October of 2014, roughly one of every six new U.S. jobs (15.4 percent) was created in Texas,[43] although Texas accounts for only 8.3 percent of the U.S. population.
Some argue that the Texas boom is a result of the oil and gas boom. While that is certainly a big part of the story, California is also a major oil and gas producer, but its policies have inhibited development of its abundant energy resources. Furthermore, while jobs in oil and gas extraction have increased by 42 percent in just five years, this represents only 2.2 percent of the overall job growth in Texas. Of perhaps rivaled importance is Texas's transformation into a major high-technology state, with Austin and Houston developing major technology corridors.
The divergent experiences of these four states illustrates that the quality of the economic policies matters in economic growth, not necessarily size or weather. Even though California has a much more pleasant climate than Texas, the Lone Star State has outcompeted California in nearly every measure of progress we could find. And Florida is draining New York of its population and businesses. We would argue that California and New York are shining billboards of what not to do if states want to gain income and wealth.
Do Higher State Tax Rates Help the Poor and Reduce Inequality?
Class warfare is a hot issue in state capitals of late, just as it is in Washington, DC. Some legislators argue that raising the highest tax rate on wealthy citizens can effectively reduce the gap between rich and poor in a state. The "great recession" of 2008 and 2009 spurred many states to hike income taxes on the rich. By September 2009, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Wisconsin, and North Carolina had hiked their highest income tax rate.[44] In Illinois, the rate jumped from 3 percent to 5 percent across the board, including the rich.
The increases in the highest tax brackets were almost all enacted in states with Democratic-controlled legislatures, reports Stateline.org. In each case, Pew Trusts' Stateline reports, "Democrats muscled through the increases, arguing that wealthier residents can afford to pay a higher share of their income in taxes—particularly during a recession."[45]
However, these higher tax rates have not balanced state budgets or improved the financing of vital state services—far from it. These states have been forced to savagely cut state services. We find no evidence that high-tax-rate states provide better or more services for their residents. For example, comparing California and Texas, we find that California spends substantially more than Texas in most cases, but has far worse outcomes in terms of quality of services or improving lives.[46]
Despite the evidence of economic imperilment, more tax increases on the rich may be coming in the more liberal states. With estimated combined pension deficits of more than $900 billion for all the states,[47] we expect another big push for tax increases in blue states. California, Illinois, and New York must decide whether to make their "temporary" tax increases permanent.
What of the argument that the rich are not paying their "fair share"?
These high-tax-rate states are already extremely dependent on the rich to pay for state government services. Table 4 shows the highest combined state and local tax rates in California, New Jersey, New York State, and New York City.[48] Each of these three states imposes tax rates at or near the highest in the nation—about twice the national average. Our examination of the data from the state revenue offices shows that these jurisdictions collected between 40 percent and 50 percent of their income tax revenues in 2008 from the wealthiest 1 percent of tax filers.[49] New York City has the same heavy extraction from the richest.
Targeting the rich is not only harming major employers, but also destroying opportunities for income mobility for others. A state cannot balance its budget on the backs of the 1 percent most productive citizens. They will leave, and they are leaving. In addition, other people and businesses are fleeing these locales. This is not what one would expect if these states are really superior and the "worker paradises" in terms of providing social justice
Again, the real-world evidence supports our contention. We start with research from groups on the left that support higher taxes on the rich. In other words, for the sake of argument, we will accept their list of which states are savagely unfair and which tax in a way to level incomes and create a more "progressive" economic culture.
We used the "who pays" analysis created by the liberal group Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy[50] to determine the states with the most and least regressive tax systems, and we then examined the migration patterns in and out of these states. We found that states with the most highly progressive taxes (i.e., least regressive) on the richest 1 percent had much lower population growth than states with the most regressive taxes. As shown in Table 5, the least-regressive-tax states had average population growth from 2003 to 2013 that lagged 1.1 percent below the national trend. The 10 most highly regressive states, including nine with no state income tax, had population growth on average 4 percent above the U.S. average.
Finally, Stephen Moore teamed with economist Richard Vedder to examine whether states with higher tax rates, more liberal voting records, higher minimum wages, and more welfare benefits had less inequality than states on the other side of the policy spectrum. We found no evidence that these policies reduced income inequality. In some cases, we found statistically significant results in the other direction: Liberal policy prescriptions are associated with more income inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient, the left's favorite fairness index.[51]
The Gini coefficient, a standard measure of income inequality, calculates the extent to which the income distribution differs from perfect equality. The higher the number, the more inequality exists. A Gini coefficient of zero means perfect equality of income, and a Gini coefficient of one represents perfect inequality, such as if one person has all the income. The U.S. Census Bureau annually calculates the Gini coefficient for the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Contrary to the liberal expectations, the 19 states with minimum wages above the $7.25 per hour federal minimum do not have lower income inequality. States with a super minimum wage—such as Connecticut ($9.15), California ($9.00), New York ($8.75), and Vermont ($9.15)—have significantly wider gaps between rich and poor than states without a super minimum wage.
Welfare benefits exhibit a similar pattern. A Cato Institute report measured the value of all state welfare benefits in 2012.[52] In general, the higher the benefit package, the higher the Gini coefficient is. States with high income tax rates are not any more equal than states with no income tax. The Gini coefficient measures pre-tax, not after-tax income, and it does not count most sources of noncash welfare benefits. Still, there is little evidence over time that progressive policies reduce income inequality.
To be clear, our findings do not show that state redistributionist policies cause more income inequality, but they do suggest that raising tax rates or the minimum wage fails to achieve greater equality and may make income gaps wider.
The conclusion is nearly inescapable that liberal policy prescriptions—especially high income tax rates and the lack of a right-to-work law—make states less prosperous because they chase away workers, businesses, and capital.
When politicians become fixated on closing income gaps rather than creating an overall climate conducive to prosperity, middle-income and lower-income groups suffer the most, and income inequality rises. The past five years are a case in point. Those at the top have seen gains, especially from the booming stock market, while middle-class real incomes have fallen by about $500 in the five years since the recovery started in June 2009.[53]
This is a reversal from the 1980s and 1990s when almost all income groups enjoyed gains. The Gini coefficient for the United States has risen in each of the past three years and was higher in 2013 (0.476) than when George W. Bush left office (0.466 in 2008),[54] although Mr. Bush was denounced for economic policies, especially taxes, that allegedly favored "the rich."
Our view is that John F. Kennedy had it right that a rising tide lifts all boats. It would be better for low-income and middle-income Americans if growth, not equality, became the driving policy goal in the states and in Washington, DC.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg once called Manhattan a "luxury good," meaning that people are willing to pay a premium to live there. Mayor Bill de Blasio obviously is of the same mindset. So are the politicians in Sacramento, who say much of the same thing about living in the Golden State.
Yet these jurisdictions are discovering that there are limits. The rich will pay more to live in Santa Barbara or Manhattan penthouses for sure, but everyone has a limit. The tax savings of living and running a business in Austin, Palm Beach, Nashville, Seattle, and countless other cities in states with no income tax can eventually outweigh the advantages of proximity to Wall Street or the Pacific Coast Highway. And when the rich escape, they often take more than their own direct tax payments. They also take their businesses and jobs with them. That is the collateral damage that high tax rates have on the middle class and poor.
Responding to the Critics
In an open letter in 2008 to Governor David Patterson (D–NY), Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz advised the debt-drenched Empire State "it is economically preferable to raise taxes on those with high incomes than to cut state expenditures."[55]
Some of our growing number of liberal critics have tried every way possible to refute our findings. In recent months, liberal think tanks have published several studies arguing that taxes, regulations, and other policy variables have only minimal impact on people and businesses moving from one state to another. They also argue that cutting taxes or becoming a right-to-work state will have little impact on a state's future prosperity. For example, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities flatly declares that Texas does not hold "important lessons for state policies that can generate similar growth elsewhere."[56]
Their case generally boils down to three arguments:
Interstate migration patterns are too small to make much of a difference.
Per capita income growth is the same or higher in high-tax and liberal states.
Other policy factors—such as quality of education, roads, and housing—are more important than taxes to businesses and families when they move from one state to another.
Yet the evidence that pro-growth policies have a large impact on how states perform and where people—especially successful people—will want to live in the future is pretty close to incontrovertible and even overwhelming. In our book Wealth of States, we dedicate a lengthy chapter to refuting these arguments. Here is a brief summary of why the skeptics' case is wrong.
1. Does interstate migration matter for the long-term health of a state or city?
One quick answer is to look at Detroit. After 30 years of liberal policies, Detroit's population fell from 1.6 million to about 600,000. (See Chart 5.) This is, of course, a dramatic example of the impact of outmigration. This once great city, which was one of the nation's hubs of manufacturing and commerce, is today a ghost town of closed factories, dilapidated housing, social disrepair, and fiscal bankruptcy. For years liberals pretended that the downfall of Detroit was not happening, blamed it on external factors (trade), or attacked critics of Motor City policies as racist. Those myths crashed with the crash of the city itself.
Our warning is that the Northeastern states and several other blue states around the country are slow-motion versions of Detroit. Over the 18-year period studied, $125 billion of the income earned by Americans shifted from one state to another each year because of interstate moving patterns.[57] That is just in one year.
Over time, a pattern emerges of high-tax states losing earned income to low-tax states. Over the 18-year period of 1992/1993–2009/2010 based on Internal Revenue Service data, the aggregate adjusted gross income lost from interstate migration exceeded 8 percent of the 2009 total in Connecticut, Rhode Island, Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey, Illinois, and New York. In contrast, Nevada, Florida, Arizona, South Carolina, Idaho, Montana, and North Carolina gained more than 15 percent.[58] We regard these results as highly problematic over time for the blue states, and the politicians and chambers of commerce in these states should, too.
2. Why are blue states richer with higher per capita and median family incomes than red states?
The answer is that blue states were not always as dysfunctional in their policies as they are now. New Jersey was one of the five richest states in the nation in 1960 (and still is).[59] It had neither an income tax, nor a sales tax. Now it has nearly the highest income and sales taxes in the nation, and it cannot balance its budget. It is a rapidly declining state. Connecticut had no income tax until 1992. Since then Connecticut has suffered flight from almost all of its cities.
The per capita income measure of how a state is performing is routinely cited as evidence that blue states are not falling behind, but this does not tell the whole story because population grows rapidly in high-growth states. Incomes rise, but so does the denominator population. Meanwhile, Rhode Island has suffered a population loss year after year, yet is still a very high per capita income state. If trends continue the state will only have a few people left, but they will likely have a high per capita income. When per capita income rises due to young people leaving or the birth rate dropping, it is foolish to conclude the state is better off.
The inherent problem with measuring gross state product (GSP) or income on a per capita basis is plain when examining two states on opposite ends of the growth spectrum: Nevada and West Virginia.
Nevada is a zero-income-tax state, a zero-corporate-tax state, and a right-to-work state that, over the decade 2001–2010, ranked first in population growth, eighth in GSP growth, eighth in personal income growth, and ninth in nonfarm payroll employment growth. Yet the state ranked 48th in per capita personal income growth and 35th in median household income growth from 2001 to 2010.
In contrast, West Virginia has been ranked number one in median household income growth from 2001 to 2010. Since 1961, the state has gone from comprising 0.78 percent of the nation's total personal income to just 0.48 percent in 2012. Income has fallen precipitously decade after decade in West Virginia, as has its population—from 1.05 percent to 0.59 percent of total U.S. population in 2012. West Virginia's metrics are not the components of a prosperous state. The name West Virginia has been and still is a synonym for poverty and despair. People and jobs have been fleeing this high-tax state for a long time.[60]
West Virginia has experienced the exact opposite of what Nevada has experienced. In West Virginia, able-bodied lower-class and middle-class workers and their families have been unable to find work and have left the state for greener pastures elsewhere. Lower-income or no-income people are leaving the state more rapidly than are higher-income people. As the state becomes more and more hollowed out, the last few stubborn above-average families still remaining in the state cause the median household income to rise.
To remove another point of confusion, the people in a state can all be better off even if the state's per capita or median income goes down. For example, if 50,000 low-income agriculture workers earn higher pay by moving into Texas, and Texas farmers earn more by hiring these high-quality, low-pay in-migrants, then everyone is better off and no one is worse off. The per capita income in Texas may actually go down simply because there would be proportionately more low-income agricultural workers in Texas.
While per capita GSP is generally higher in the high-income-tax states for these reasons, growth of per capita GSP is not generally higher in those states. For example, in the 2001–2010 period, per capita GSP grew 37.2 percent in the no-income-tax states, and just 33.4 percent in the high-income-tax states. Regardless, even when this measure favors our point of view, it is still inappropriate to use it as an indicator of good state policies.[61]
Finally, other factors cause growth in states. Weather and sunshine clearly have an impact: The fastest growing states are Florida, Arizona, and Texas. Yet California, with arguably the nicest climate in the nation, has amazingly lost population over the past decade due to internal migration. Two states with nearly the highest population growth in the past five years are Oklahoma and North Dakota, and does anyone really want to argue that people move to those states for the weather?
The greater prosperity in red states did not just happen by chance. Numerous academic studies—both old and recent—have shown statistical evidence that high state and local taxes repel jobs and businesses.[62] Martin Feldstein, now president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, co-authored a famous study in 1998 called "Can State Taxes Redistribute Income?" and it should be required reading for today's state lawmakers. The study concludes:
Since individuals can avoid unfavorable taxes by migrating to jurisdictions that offer more favorable tax conditions, a relatively unfavorable tax will cause gross wages to adjust…. A more progressive tax thus induces firms to hire fewer high skilled employees and to hire more low skilled employees.[63]
For workers and businesses, progressive policy is not progress at all.
We regard interstate competition for jobs, people, and capital as a positive force to discipline politicians to do the right thing. Too many politicians on the left still pretend that taxes, forced-union laws, indebtedness, and heavy regulation do not hurt their states' economies. This study shows that these policies matter a great deal and that blue states such as New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Minnesota need to change course abruptly or they will be economically bled to death by the dynamic states of the South and others.
By promoting lower tax rates, smaller government intrusion into the economy, and right-to-work laws, our critics say we are endorsing a "race to the bottom." Every state, the warning goes, will cut more and more taxes and ax vital public services such as schools and roads and police service. Every state will have the level of public services of Mississippi, and America will not be a very desirable place to live. We disagree.
Growth is not a zero-sum game. It is a positive-sum game with the favorable outcome of more jobs, higher incomes, and more opportunity in a state benefiting nearly all residents. As states grow richer, they can provide higher quality public services, and they will need less of some services, such as welfare and crime prevention.
We are confident that each state and the nation as a whole would be better off if they adopted the pro-growth policies that we recommend in this study and our book Wealth of States. This point is especially important when we consider that states and cities are not just competing against each other, but also against China, India, Indonesia, Europe, and every other place that would love to steal businesses and jobs from America. Of course, national economic policies have the biggest impact on whether Michigan can compete with Dublin, Tel Aviv, Berlin, or Beijing. State policies also make a difference when a global company wants to build a new plant or research facility and is choosing between Indiana and India. "We are competing against everyone in the world here in Texas," said Governor Perry. "That is why we have to get the policies right at the state level."[64]
If every state starts to get this growth formula right, America would benefit with rising living standards and more high-paying jobs across the nation.
—Stephen Moore is Distinguished Visiting Fellow in the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation. Arthur Laffer, PhD, is the founder and chairman of Laffer Associates, an economic research and consulting firm. Joel Griffith is a Research Associate in the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation.
[1] Tax Foundation, "State Individual Income Tax Rates Data Series, 2000–2014," April 1, 2013, http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-individual-income-tax-rates (accessed November 17, 2014).
[2] Arthur B. Laffer, Stephen Moore, and Jonathan Williams, Rich States, Poor States: ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index, 7th ed., American Legislative Exchange Council, 2014, pp. 74 and 101, http://alec.org/docs/RSPS_7th_Edition.pdf (accessed November 17, 2014).
[3] Jonathan Williams and Ben Wilterdink, eds., "State Tax Cut Roundup: 2013 Legislative Session," American Legislative Exchange Council, November 2013, http://www.alec.org/wp-content/uploads/2013-TaxCutRoundup.pdf (accessed September 17, 2014).
[4] Tax Foundation, State Individual Income Tax Rates Data Series, 2000–2014.
[5] Virginia Young, "Missouri Legislature Overrides Nixon's Tax Cut Veto," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May 7, 2014, http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missouri-legislature-overrides-nixon-s-tax-cut-veto/article_b4e9cc7f-8283-5dd6-ac9d-bb7b2abb0f06.html (accessed September 17, 2014).
[6] Tax Foundation, "State Individual Income Tax Rates Data Series, 2000 to 2014."
[7] The top marginal personal income tax rate on personal income imposed as of January 1, 2014, using the tax rate of each state's largest city as a proxy for the local tax. The deductibility of federal taxes from state tax liability is included where applicable. New Hampshire and Tennessee tax interest and dividend income—so-called unearned income—but not ordinary wage income.
[8] Laffer et al., Rich States, Poor States, p. 39, Table 6.
[9] Laffer Associates compilation of U.S. Census Bureau annual net domestic migration data.
[10] Laffer et al., Rich States, Poor States, p. 39, Table 6.
[11] Arthur B. Laffer et al., An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of States: How Taxes, Energy, and Worker Freedom Will Change the Balance of Power Among States (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2014), pp. 57–58, Table 3.1.
[12] The most recent year for which data were available for Wealth of States.
[13] Ibid., p. 107, Table 5.2.
[14] Michigan became a right-to-work state in March 2013.
[15] Laffer et al., An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of States, p. 91.
[18] Laffer et al., Rich States, Poor States, p. 3.
[19] Nebraska has a nonpartisan legislature, but has been included as a "red state."
[20] U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Surveys, State-to-State Migration Flows.
[22] U.S. Census Bureau, North Dakota: 2000—Population and Housing Unit Counts, September 2003, http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/phc-3-36.pdf (accessed September 17, 2014), and U.S. Bureau of the Census, North Dakota: 1990—Population and Housing Unit Counts, September 1992, https://www.census.gov/prod/cen1990/cph2/cph-2-36.pdf (accessed September 17, 2014).
[23] U.S. Bureau of the Census, Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930–Population, 1931.
[24] U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates, Historical Data, http://www.census.gov/popest/data/historical/index.html (accessed January 15, 2015).
[25] U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Division, "Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico, April 1, 2010–July 1, 2013," NST-EST2013-01, December 2013, http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2013/index.html (accessed January 6, 2015).
[26] Laffer et al., Rich States, Poor States, p. 24.
[28] U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010–July 1, 2013.
[29] We provide a complete explanation of the methodology in Laffer et al., An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of States, Chap. 6.
[31] Midwestern states include Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri. For this chart, Indiana and Michigan are considered forced-union states since they did not enact right-to-work legislation until 2012.
[32] Laffer et al., Rich States, Poor States, state data. Leaving out the right-to-work outlier (North Dakota at 32.2 percent growth) and the forced-unionization outlier (Michigan at –10 percent growth) results in 5.9 percent growth in Midwest right-to-work states and –0.5 percent in Midwest forced-unionization states.
[33] U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Estimate Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010–July 1, 2013.
[35] U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
[36] California Legislative Analyst's Office, "The 2014–15 Budget: California's Fiscal Outlook," November 2013, http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2013/bud/fiscal-outlook/fiscal-outlook-112013.pdf (accessed January 6, 2015).
[37] U.S. Census Bureau, "The 10 Fastest Growing Metro Areas from July 1, 2012, to July 1, 2013," March 27, 2014, https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/pdf/CB14-51_countymetropopest2013tables.pdf (accessed January 6, 2015).
[38] Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, "Unemployment Rate in San Francisco County/City, CA," December 30, 2014, http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CASANF0URN (accessed January 6, 2015).
[39] U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Regional and State Employment and Unemployment Summary, November 21, 2014.
[40] U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics.
[42] U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, Economic Snapshot: Texas, August 2014, http://www.jec.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=62bd956e-34c8-4c48-b879-2b4bad795923 (accessed September 17, 2014).
[44] Tax Foundation, State Individual Income Tax Rates, 2000–2014, http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-individual-income-tax-rates (accessed January 15, 2014).
[45] John Gramlich, "State Tax Hikes Take Aim at Top Earners," The Pew Charitable Trusts, September 2, 2009, http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2009/09/02/state-tax-hikes-take-aim-at-top-earners (accessed September 17, 2014).
[46] Laffer et al., An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of States, pp. 232–233, Table 7.10.
[47] Public Sector Retirement Systems, "The Fiscal Health of State Pension Plans: Funding Gap Continues to Grow," The Pew Charitable Trusts, April 8, 2014, http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/analysis/2014/04/08/the-fiscal-health-of-state-pension-plans-funding-gap-continues-to-grow (accessed September 17, 2014).
[48] State and city revenue offices, Manhattan Institute, California Tax Commission, and Tax Foundation.
[49] This is percent paid of those making more than $500,000 a year or the richest 1.3 percent of tax filers.
[50] Carl Davis et al., Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States, Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy, January 2013, http://www.itep.org/pdf/whopaysreport.pdf (accessed September 17, 2014).
[51] Stephen Moore and Richard Vedder, "The Blue-State Path to Inequality," The Wall Street Journal, June 4, 2014, http://www.wsj.com/articles/stephen-moore-and-richard-vedder-liberal-blue-states-have-greater-income-inequality-than-conservative-red-states-1401923793 (accessed February 5, 2015).
[52] Michael D. Tanner and Charles Hughes, "The Work Versus Welfare Trade-Off: 2013," Cato Institute, August 19, 2013, http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/work-versus-welfare-trade (accessed January 6, 2015).
[53] Sentier Research, "Household Income Trends: January 2000 to February 2015," March 2015.
[54] U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Income Tables: Income Inequality, Table A-2, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/table_IE-1A2.pdf (accessed April 1, 2015).
[55] Joseph E. Stiglitz, letter to Governor David A. Paterson, Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno, and Speaker Sheldon Silver, March 27, 2008, http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/StiglitzLetter_TaxesVsCuts_March2008.pdf (accessed January 14, 2015).
[56] Elizabeth McNichol and Nicholas Johnson, "The Texas Economic Model: Hard for Other States to Follow and Not All It Seems," Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, April 3, 2012, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3739 (accessed November 25, 2014).
[57] Laffer et al., An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of States, pp. 48–49, Table 2.6.
[59] U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey.
[60] Laffer et al., An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of States, p. 256.
[62] Several studies are cited in ibid., Chap. 7.
[63] Martin Feldstein and Marian Vaillant, "Can State Taxes Redistribute Income?" National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper No. 4785, June 1994, http://www.nber.org/papers/w4785 (accessed November 25, 2014).
[64] Rick Perry, interview by Stephen Moore, 2013.
Why Does Washington Demonize Drug Companies?
Tucker Carlson Gets It Wrong on Tech Policy
Hotel Industry's Latest Airbnb Attack to Upend Short-Term Rentals

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


One of the lasting legacies of the Great Depression is the increased use of U.S. government chartered entities that we call agencies. The agencies were established to aid a wide variety of consumers including homeowners, farmers, agricultural interests, and students. One way the agencies assist these consumers is by reducing their borrowing costs. Since 2000, there has been a tremendous increase in the issuance of agency debt. In this chapter, we discuss the agencies that issue the most debt.


text:
Avi Melamed |
Briefings & Intel Tours
ITME
العربيةעברית
Avi Melamed.
Category: Yemen.
A Prediction Materialized: Iranian Proxy Vows to "Fight to Liberate the Golan Heights"
Intelligence Bulletin
Inside the Middle East – Intelligence Perspectives Intelligence Bulletin March 14, 2017 A Prediction Materialized: Iranian Proxy Vows to "Fight to liberate the Golan Heights" Information: In my January 2017 article "A Growing Whirlpool of Violence: The Middle East Legacy of Barack Obama " I made the following prediction regarding the growing direct and indirect Iranian…
Video Briefing: Iran Sends a Message in the Indian Ocean
In this video Avi Melamed analyzes Iran's attack on Saudi Arabian ships in the Indian Ocean
A Growing Whirlpool of Violence: The Middle East Legacy of Barack Obama
AUDIO ENABLED
The Gulf States
The West and The Middle East
Click here for PDF of this Article January 19, 2017 A Growing Whirlpool of Violence: The Middle Eastern Legacy of Barack Obama by Avi Melamed On June 4, 2009 the President of the United States, Barack Obama, delivered a speech at Cairo University entitled "A New Beginning" in which he called for the opening of a new…
Vienna, Aden, Damascus
July 23rd, 2015 Vienna, Aden, Damascus By Avi Melamed The signing of the Vienna agreement on July 14, 2015 between Iran and the "Five Plus One" states, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom United States, plus Germany regarding the Iranian nuclear program was not surprising. The Mullah regime desperately needed an agreement and the United States President, Barrack Obama wanted – critics of the agreement add that he desperately wanted – an agreement. Some argue it is a bad deal, others argue it is a good deal; some see both positive as well as negative aspects of the agreement. There should have, and could have, been a much better agreement. The West had a much stronger hand than the Iranians.…
Crisis in Yemen: Significant Milestone
March 30, 2015 Crisis in Yemen: Significant Milestone by Avi Melamed In October 2014 I published an article entitled "Sixty Six Egyptian Fisherman, Yemen, and Instability in The Middle East" in which I said: The events in the fall of 2014 would result in increasing instability in the Middle East The developments in Yemen at that time would have serious regional ramifications Saudi Arabia and Egypt would not tolerate the deteriorating situation in Yemen threatening their strategic interests My predictions have been fully realized: On March 25th, a military coalition of the Arab Gulf states (except for Oman) plus Jordan, Morocco, and Sudan, and one non-Arab state (Pakistan), led by Saudi Arabia, launched aerial attacks on Houthi Shiite tribe…
Pax Amer-Iran
March 20, 2015 Pax Amer – Iran by Avi Melamed At the peak of its power and influence, the United States' foreign policy was described as Pax Americana. That description was inspired by the term Pax Romana –"The Roman Peace" – the term that describes the period of time between 27 BC and 180 AD known as the "Golden Era"…
Muslim Brotherhood at the Crossroads
December 6, 2014 by Avi Melamed The Middle East continues to constantly provide dramatic events in different areas – in Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq and other places. However, I would like to divert your attention for a while from the dramatic events in those arenas and take a pause to explore some very interesting processes taking place for a significant player in the region – The Muslim Brotherhood movement. Following the outbreak of events in the Arab world known as the Arab Awakening, the Muslim Brotherhood has succeeded in attaining their primary political goal in two Arab countries. In the elections held in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood won by an overwhelming majority in the Egyptian parliament, and its candidate Mohamed…
Sixty-Six Egyptian Fishermen, Yemen and Instability in the Middle East
October 24, 2014 Sixty-Six Egyptian Fishermen, Yemen and Instability in the Middle East Pay attention to the recent developments in Yemen, an Arab State with a population of 23,000,000 people. Yemen is located on the strategic Bab-el-Mandeb Strait (sometimes called the Mandab Strait) which flows between Yemen on the Arabian Peninsula and Djibouti and Eritrea in the Horn of Africa, and connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden. Yemen chronically suffers from weak governments, endless violence and enormous economic and social challenges. Yemen is a member of a "not so complementary" club of the poorest nations in the world. Yemen's society is based on tribes and demographically it is 60% Sunni and 30% Shiite. All the above factors…
Arab Media Reports and Analysis
Audio or Video Briefing
Avi Melamed on TV
Avi's Pieces in Other Publications
Avi's Predictions & Reality
Inside the Middle East
Inside The Middle East Podcast
Israel and the Muslim world
ITME Lexicon
Middle East Economy
Middle East Society and Culture
Women in the Muslim world
Zoom In – Zoom Out Podcast
Iran Syria Lebanon Hezbollah Hamas Egypt Iraq video Saudi Arabia Middle East Palestinians Sunni Gaza Israel Assad Turkey Palestinian Shi'ite Arab World Muslim Brotherhood Yemen Gaza Strip Arab Media Jordan terror United States US intelligence peace ISIS Trump Hassan Nasrallah Al-Qaeda Jihad Russia settlements Kurds Islamic Jihad The West Bank Palestinian Authority West Libya Radical Islam Bashar Al Assad Damascus Ezzedeen Al-Qassam Brigades Islam Qatar Refugees Golan Heights
AVI'S NEW BOOK
"Inside the Middle East:
Making Sense of the Most Dangerous and Complicated Place on Earth"
Join my mailing list to be the first to know about my appearances, events and lecture tours!
Join my mailing list to receive my Intel Briefs straight to your inbox!
Copyright © 2014 Avi Melamed. All Rights Reserved.
info@avimelamed.com | Israel Cell +972-50-540-9905 | Baltimore Land Line 202-787-3919
Members Area.
Get in contact about:*
Reserving a Tour / Intel BriefingReserving a Lecture AbroadGeneral Question
Booking.
Event Title:*


text:
The Budget of the United States Government: Appendix
By United States. Bureau of the Budget
This appropriation covers all construction and facility improvement items of Saint Elizabeths Hospital. Proj ects underway or proposed for initiation in 1966 are set forth below:
1. Construction and equipment, continued treatment building (rehabilitation center).—Plans and specifications for this 450-bed treatment facility are complete. Solicitation of bids for the construction contract has been deferred pending resolution of the building's relationship to community mental health program plans for the District of Columbia.
2. Miscellaneous improvements of existing facilities.— Funds requested will provide for (a) rewiring and extension of electrical facilities, (b) installation of insect screens in patients' buildings, (c) modernization of dishwashing installations, (d) plumbing modernization and improve ment, (e) improvements in the hot water generation system, (f) renovation of a portion of the hospital's railroad roadbed, (g) air conditioning of a treatment building, (h) improvement of the ventilation systems in two treatment buildings, (i) a comprehensive facility survey of the hospital, (j) construction of an addition to the fire house, (k) improvement of employee locker facilities, (1) replacement, improvement, and extension of bedpan sterilizing
-8,561 8,418
1965 estimate
591 -2,161
2,142 2,161 -2,103
1 Selected resources as of June 30 are as follows: Unpaid undelivered orders, 1963, $468 thousand; 1964, $532 thousand; 1965, $1,578 thousand; 1966, $1,125 thousand.
Appropriation reAppropri- quired to ation complete required for 1966
25 7,975 1,977 7,975
building. This facility houses 250 patients and provides 3. Construction and equipment, treatment and cafeteria food service for these plus 400 others from two adjacent buildings. Construction and landscaping are complete, the building is fully occupied, and final installation of certain items of fixed equipment will be completed early in the current fiscal year. Demolition of old structures to be replaced by this facility will also be undertaken
during 1965.
4. Extension and modernization of administration buildremodeled to provide more adequate space and facilities. ing. The hospital's administration building has been
All remodeled areas are now in use. areas of basement are being waterproofed and when this phase of the work is completed early in the current fiscal year, the project will be complete.
5. Construction and equipment, maximum security building.-Construction and equipping of the hospital's 396-bed maximum security facility was completed during 1964.
6. Construction and equipment, security facility.-Funds requested will provide for the development of a comprehensive program statement for a security facility, housing 400 patients, which will contain maximum, medium, and minimum security features. The proposed construction will make possible the demolition of two antiquated patient buildings, constructed in 1879 and 1899.
LIMITATION ON SALARIES AND EXPENSES, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
(Trust fund)
For necessary expenses, not more than [$326,410,000] $358,092,000 may be expended as authorized by law (42 U.S.C. 401 (g) (1)) from either or both the Federal old-age and survivors insurance trust fund and the Federal disability insurance trust fund: Provided, That such amounts as are required shall be available to pay the cost of necessary travel incident to medical examinations or hearings for verifying disabilities or for review of disability determinations, of individuals who file applications for disability determinations under title II of the the Social Security Act, as amended: Provided further, That $10,000,000 of the foregoing amount shall be apportioned for use pursuant to section 3679 of the Revised Statutes as amended (31 U.S.C. 665), only to the extent necessary to process workloads not anticipated in the budget estimates and after maximum absorption of the costs of such workload within the existing limitation has been achieved: Provided further, That the amount otherwise required to be poid from the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund into the Treasury as reimbursement for expenditures from the general fund (42 U.S.C. 401(g)(1)) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, shall be reduced by $8,053,000 to cover the cost of issuance by the Social Security Administration of account numbers for income tax control purposes.
Advances to States, next succeeding fiscal year: For making, after May 31 of the current fiscal year, advances to States under section 221(e) of the Social Security Act, as amended, for the first quarter of the next succeeding fiscal year, such sums as may be necessary from the above authorization may be expended from the Federal old-age and survivors insurance trust fund. (42 U.S.C. 401-425; Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Act, 1965.)
Program and Financing (in thousands of dollars)
The old-age, survivors and disability insurance program protects over 90 percent of the workers in the United States and their families against the loss of earnings due to old-age, disability or death. People covered under this program contribute a small portion of their earnings during their work years to pay for this protection. Employers match the contributions made by their employees. These contributions are deposited in the Federal old-age
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION-Continued LIMITATION ON SALARIES AND EXPENSES, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION-Continued
(Trust fund)-Continued
and survivors insurance trust fund and the Federal disability insurance trust fund, from which benefit payments and administrative costs are paid.
Major amendments to the Social Security Act have been enacted during the last 15 years. These amendments have increased the protection provided by the retirement and survivors insurance phase of the program, and have added a disability program which provides for monthly insurance benefits for disabled workers of any age and their dependents.
1. Maintenance of earnings accounts.-Eligibility for insurance benefits and the amount of benefit payments are based on records of an individual's earnings maintained by the Social Security Administration and the volume of work is related to certain factors such as level of employment and rate of turnover. Continuing increases in covered employment in 1965 and 1966, as the total labor force grows and unemployment declines, will result in a greater number of postings to workers' accounts.
4. Processing disability claims and maintaining beneficiary rolls. Claims for disability insurance benefits are filed in the Administration's district offices. Most of these cases are sent to State agencies where determinations of the existence of a disability are made. These determinations are reviewed in the central office of the Social Security Administration to assure uniformity among States. Enactment of legislation (Public Law 88-650) during the second session of the 88th Congress removed the 18-month limitation on retroactively establishing a period of disability which will increase the proportion of claims applications requiring a disability determination. Also, a total of 51,000 applications from disabled workers who previously filed for benefits but who could not qualify because of the existence of this limitation, will be processed in 1965. The applications from
Requests for hearings: Received..
Processed....
5. Hearings and appeals.-Individuals whose claims are disallowed have a right to appeal to the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals. The increased number of hearings requests anticipated in 1965 and 1966 are related principally to the projected increase in disability claims, to an expected higher proportion of initial claims moving to the appeals stage, and to the effect of legislation removing the limitation on establishing a period of disability.
Identification code 09-30-8704-0-7-654
1,516,000 $1,251
Personnel compensation:
Permanent positions..
Positions other than permanent.
Other personnel compensation..
1964 actual 1965 estimate 1966 estimate 27,545 26,800
6. Administration. This activity includes direction and management of the Social Security Administration, program planning and evaluation, actuarial and statistical services, and general service functions.
7. Internal Revenue Service enumeration project. This project covers work done by the Social Security Administration for the Internal Revenue Service in issuing account numbers for taxpayer identification purposes. The work performed in 1963 and 1964 was financed initially from the Federal old-age and survivors insurance trust fund with reimbursement to be made after the completion of the project in 1964.
8. Contingency reserve. This reserve ($10 million) represents funds to be made available only to the extent budget estimates. An estimated $8.7 million will be used necessary to process workloads not anticipated in the from the contingency in 1965 principally because of the unbudgeted work loads related to disability legislation enacted in the second session of the 88th Congress.
Object Classification (in thousands of dollars)
Advances to State agencies. 25.2 Services of other agencies. 26.0 Supplies and materials.. 31.0 Equipment.............
32.0 Lands and structures-
1,641,000 1,729,000 $1,416 $1,485
Total personnel compensation.. 12.0 Personnel benefits............. 21.0 Travel and transportation of persons. 22.0 Transportation of things.... 23.0 Rent, communications, and utilities. 24.0 Printing and reproduction...... 25.1 Other services..
42.0 Insurance claims and indemnities.
92.0 Undistributed (contingency reserve). 93.0 Administrative expenses included in schedule for fund as a whole..
Total obligations.
1964 actual
1965 1966 estimate estimate
213,387 230,755 239,069 1,727 1,586 1,405 4,905 5,684 9,925 219,877 237,844 250,721
16.346 17,481 17,919
4.677 745 26,597
1,282 24,628 30.719
3,798 2.951 4,767
30,475 4,375 5,046 3,307 3,003 1,623 4,614 78 36
1,280 10,000 -307,204-331,626-358,092
Funds are requested from the Federal old-age and survivors insurance trust fund and the Federal disability insurance trust fund to provide for construction of an additional office building and warehouse at headquarters in Woodlawn, Md., and for acquisition of sites, design and construction of 13 district offices.
2,535 -2,324
09-30-8705-0-7-654
1. Headquarters construction.-Continued growth of the social security program has rendered existing headquarters facilities inadequate. The 1965 limitation provided $450 thousand for planning an additional office building and warehouse and the 1966 request of $8,729 thousand provides for construction of these buildings. Construction of additional buildings at the headquarters site will permit 22.0 Transportation of things
Printing and reproduction..
the release of all commercial space currently leased in the
Baltimore area with the exception of district offices and
provide housing for additional staff requirements related to
the growth of the present program over the next 10 years.
2. District office construction.-Construction is planned 32.0 Lands and structures.
25.1 Other services...
25.2 Services of other agencies..
26.0 Supplies and materials..
31.0 Equipment............
in areas where improvement in district office space is needed and construction is both advantageous and feasible. The 1965 limitation provided $5.3 million for the acquisition of sites, and for design and construction of 25 district
Analysis of 1966 financing
Deduct selected resources and unobligated balance, start of
1 Selected resources as of June 30 are as follows: Unpaid undelivered orders, 1963, $2,348 thousand; 1964.
$24 thousand; 1965, $2,656 thousand; 1966, $7,459 thousand.
21.0 Travel and transportation of persons.
Add selected resources and unobligated balance, end of year
93.0 Nonadministrative expenses included in
schedule for fund as a whole..
Total obligations................
offices for the Social Security Administration. Funds requested for 1966 will permit the construction of 13 additional offices. This proposal contemplates that funds for additional district office construction will be requested
in 1967 and 1968.
Limitation re
Limitation quired to required complete for 1966
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION-Continued Proposed for separate transmittal:
General and special funds:
INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY ASSOCIATION MEETING
Program by activities:
Plan and hold meeting (program costs, funded)...
Change in selected resources 1.
10 Total obligations______ Financing:
21 Unobligated balance available, start of year. 24 Unobligated balance available, end of year..
New obligational authority (appropriation)...
Relation of obligations to expenditures: 71 Total obligations (affecting expenditures) __
72 Obligated balance, start of year..
74 Obligated balance, end of year..
Expenditures..
1964 1965 1966 actual estimate estimate
Total personnel compensation. --21.0 Travel and transportation of persons22.0 Transportation of things......... - 23.0 Rent, communications, and utilities.
24.0 Printing and reproduction_
Total obligations...
1 Selected resources as of June 30 are as follows: Unpaid undelivered orders. 1963, $0; 1964, $20 thousand; 1965, $0; 1966, $0.
The International Social Security Association is an international organization composed of agencies administering social security programs whose objectives are "to coordinate internationally and to strengthen efforts toward the extension, the protection and the technical and administrative improvement of social security throughout the world." Association membership consists of over 250 institutions covering over 500 million persons in 88 countries.
Every 3 years a general assembly is conducted by the Association. The XVth general assembly was held in Washington from September 26 to October 3, 1964, with the United States acting as host. An appropriation in the amount of $91,500 for expenses necessary for organizing and holding the meeting was made for 1964 and is to remain available until June 30, 1965.
།ཅ


Join Comecer at this year's Cell & Gene Therapy Europe, uniquely combined this year with Phacilitate: Leaders Europe.
It will take place on 11-12 September 2018 at the Royal Lancaster Hotel in London, UK, and you will find us in booth 1.
Don't miss our short insightful presentation at 12:35-12:50 on the first day titled "A cell culture GMP facility of the future implemented in the present" delivered jointly by Massimiliano Cesarini (Comecer Global Sales Manager) and Andreas Eberle (President & Head of Production at Co.don).
The equipment we are currently manufacturing for Co.don's new site shows what isolation technology can do in the cell therapy world, addressing the challenges of aseptic processing, scalability and GMP regulations. This will be of interest to cell factories, regenerative medicine labs, ATMP startups, immunotherapy labs, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.
Meet Massimiliano Cesarini in booth 1 and get all the details on FlexyCult™, our purpose-built, multiple, single-batch incubation system for advanced therapy labs, and other customizable isolation equipment you might not be aware of.


text:
Michael Baumgarten (-), est un théologien protestant prussien.

Biographie
Baumgarten est né à Haseldorf dans le duché de Holstein. Il étudie à l'Université de Kiel (1832) et devient professeur ordinarius de théologie à Rostock (1850). Universitaire libéral, il se fait connaître en 1854 grâce à un ouvrage intitulé "Die Nachtgesichte Sacharjas. Eine Prophetenstimme aus der Gegenwart ", dans lequel, partant de textes de l'Ancien Testament et prenant le ton d'un prophète, il aborde des sujets de toutes sortes .

Lors d'une conférence pastorale en 1856, il défend hardiment la liberté évangélique en ce qui concerne la sainteté juridique du dimanche. Ceci, avec d'autres tentatives de libéralisation de la religion, le met en conflit avec les autorités ecclésiastiques de Mecklembourg, et en 1858 il est privé de son poste de professeur  .

Il voyage ensuite à travers les états allemands, exigeant justice, racontant l'histoire de sa vie ("Christliche Selbstgesprache ", 1861) et donnant des conférences sur la vie de Jésus (" Die Geschichte Jesu : für das Verständniss der Gegenwart ", 1859). En 1865, il participe à la fondation de la Deutsche Protestantenverein, mais s'en retire en 1877. A plusieurs reprises (1874, 1877 et 1878), il siège au Reichstag comme membre du parti progressiste .

Autres ouvrages publiés

 Die Apostelgeschichte, oder, der Entwickelungsgang der Kirche von Jerusalem bis Rom: Ein biblisch-historischer Versuch, (1852, deuxième édition 1859), traduit en anglais par AJW Morrison comme "Les Actes des Apôtres : ou, L'histoire de l'église à l'âge apostolique ", 1854.
 Doktor Martin Luther, ein Volksbuch (188l).

Hans Hinrich Studt publie son autobiographie en 1891 (2 volumes); voir aussi Karl Schwarz, Zur Geschichte der neuesten Theologie (1856, 4e édition 1869); Frédéric Auguste Lichtenberger, "Histoire de la théologie allemande au XIXe siècle" (1889); Paul Zeller, Calwer Bibellexikon .

Bibliographie
 Hans Hinrich Studt: Professor Dr. theol. Michael Baumgarten – ein aus 45jähriger Erfahrung geschöpfter biographischer Beitrag zur Kirchenfrage. Kiel 1891.

 : Kirchliche Reaktion. Dargestellt an Michael Baumgartens Lebensschicksal. Verlag Paul Haupt, Bern Leipzig 1939.
: Baumgarten, Michael. In: Schleswig-Holsteinisches Biographisches Lexikon. Band 1. Karl Wachholtz Verlag, Neumünster 1970, S. 65–67.
 Gerhard Fohl: Baumgarten, Michael (1812–1889). In: Theologische Realenzyklopädie, Bd. 5, de Gruyter, Berlin 1980, S. 351–352.

Références

Liens externes

Député du Reichstag (Empire allemand)
Théologien protestant prussien
Professeur à l'université de Rostock
Étudiant de l'université Frédéric-Guillaume de Berlin
Étudiant de l'université de Kiel
Personnalité du Parti national-libéral (Allemagne)
Personnalité du Parti progressiste allemand
Naissance en mars 1812
Naissance au Schleswig-Holstein
Naissance dans le duché de Holstein
Décès en juillet 1889
Décès à Rostock
Décès dans le grand-duché de Mecklembourg-Schwerin
Décès à 77 ans


text:
Q: Azure DevOps integration in Sentry: Associate commits Did someone manage to integrate Azure DevOps in Sentry (sentry.io)? I stuck on "Associate commits with a Release" (see: https://docs.sentry.io/workflow/releases/?platform=browser#associate-commits-with-a-release)
I can not figure out a way how I can tell Sentry (by API) which commit ids are associated with a current release/deploy. How can I add a task to the pipeline which will post the commit ids to Sentry API? Or is there some other way to do it?

A: In azure devops, the Powershell task also support curl. So, you can execute the api in powershell task of VSTS pipeline directly.
In release pipeline, there has a pre-defined release variable, it stores the commit id which is associated with the current release pipeline: $(Release.Artifacts.{alias}.SourceVersion). Here alias is the artifacts name, and you can get it by getting $(Release.PrimaryArtifactSourceAlias).
First, create variables like this:

Then you can apply the variable $(id) into that API, and execute the api in powershell task:
"refs": [{
 "commit":"$(id)"
 }]

Now, the commit id could be packed into the body of this api, and send to the Sentry server.

If there has multiple commits associate with this release, since the variable $(Release.Artifacts.{alias}.SourceVersion) I mentioned above only store the latest commit message, here you may need add additional scripts to get what you want by Build id.
In release pipeline, with $(Build.BuildId) you can get the corresponding buildid which associate with this release. And then, you could get the commits(changes) by using this API:
GET https://dev.azure.com/{organization}/{project}/_apis/build/changes?fromBuildId={fromBuildId}&toBuildId={toBuildId}&api-version=5.1-preview.2

You could apply these powershell script into your task without change anything because this script is universal among powershell-ise, powershell command line and powershell task in VSTS.
$token = "{PAT token}"
$url="https://dev.azure.com/{org name}/{project name}/_apis/build/changes?fromBuildId={id1}&toBuildId={id2}"
$token = [System.Convert]::ToBase64String([System.Text.Encoding]::ASCII.GetBytes(":$($token)"))
$response = Invoke-RestMethod -Uri $url -Headers @{Authorization = "Basic $token"} -Method Get
Write-Host "results = $($response.value.id | ConvertTo-Json -Depth 100)"

Now, you could get the list of commits which associate with the build and corresponding release.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Q: Electrical frequency of motor with different stator and rotor poles I know the formula to find electrical frequency when we have RPM and rotor poles of a synchronous machines which is f=RPM/60*pole pairs.
I think the assumption here is that the number of rotor poles equals to number of stator poles.
I want to understand what happens if the rotor poles numbers are different than stator pole numbers.

*

*Does the above equation hold?

*What other changes occur in motor operation and why would anyone have both pole numbers different?

A:
synchronous machines

I mention synchronous machines because it's explicitly stated in the question and this answer specifically address it for synchronous motors.
For plain ordinary induction motors, the rotor poles adjust automatically to the number of stator poles via the process of induction i.e. there is no such physical commodity as the number of rotor poles taken out of context and not relative to the stator. Put another way, any rotor (that is physically the right dimensions) will work in any induction motor irrespective of the number of stator poles. This is not true of synchronous machines....
Consider a simple rotor (i.e. just a bar magnet); it has two poles, north and south then, consider that the stator has 4 poles. The rotor must align with one of the south and one of the north ends of the stator field but that is impossible if the stator sequence is N, S, N, S because consecutive north and south are at right angles and not 180°. And, if the stator was N, N, S, S then it's only a 2-pole-machine.
Now consider that the rotor has 4 magnets at right angles (4 poles). This could still work because two north poles on the rotor can align with two south poles on the stator etc. but, the bar magnets have to be arranged to produce N, S, N, S i.e. it isn't as simple as two bar magnets at right angles. This works and stator poles = rotor poles (but both having a N, S, N, S sequence.
Then, consider what happens when you put a 4 pole rotor into a stator with 6 poles - in no way can all the norths on the four rotor poles line up with all the souths produced at any instant by the stator. This is because there is a physical angle misalignment. Take it to more extreme cases and you'll find that the number of poles on the rotor has to equal the number of poles on the stator. It's impossible to make a synchronous motor when stator poles don't equal rotor poles and, both have to be N, S, N, S etc..
But why go to all the trouble of making multiple stator poles and then make a simple and ineffective (compared to the more sophisticated stator) rotor with half or a third or a quarter of the poles?
What's the motivation? None as far as I can tell.

A: If you have a synchronous machine that has a properly designed, the rotor will be designed so that the rotor pole faces occupy most of the rotor circumference. If you then put that rotor in a machine that has a stator with a different number of poles, the pole faces will cover parts of more than one stator pole or vice versa. If you then turn the rotor, it will generate voltage, but is will not have a sinusoidal waveform. It would probably be possible to predict what you would get, but it not be easy. You could rectify whatever you get and have a useable power source, but it would not be an efficient machine.
If you have an induction motor, you could probably take out the rotor and mount two permanent magnets in the rotor to make a permanent-magnet synchronous generator. That could make a somewhat useful generator regardless of the number of stator poles, but it would have the shortcomings described above.


text:
International Baccalaureate Diploma
The International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma is a comprehensive, two-year university preparatory curriculum with approximately 500,000 students in 2,000 schools in 124 countries. The program continues to grow at a rate of 14% a year and its excellent preparation for post-secondary study is recognized by universities world-wide. This recognition includes attractive admission packages, scholarships and advanced course placement. Ashbury College has been an IB World School since January 1975, sharing the core values of internationalism and lifelong learning while embracing the IB curriculum as the cornerstone of our academic excellence.
The overall Diploma success rate at Ashbury is typically 100%, compared to the IB World average of 77.7%. The average Ashbury Diploma score has remained high at over 33 points out of 45 compared to the world average of 29.5. The average grade by subject is consistently over five points.
The IB program is accessible to any engaged and motivated student with an average of 75% and higher. Our students may choose the full IB Diploma, the IB Bilingual Diploma or up to four IB certificates, although it is important to understand that it is the full IB Diploma which provides the best preparation for university, as it is a comprehensive program with both depth and breadth.
IB Diploma candidates select from each of six subject groups and complete three additional requirements. Most IB subjects are two-year programs with examinations in May of the Grade 12 year. There are two challenge levels, Higher (HL) and Standard (SL), and students choose three subjects at each level. Those students who take two Language A subjects, typically English A1 and French A2, achieve the IB Bilingual Diploma. A student may also opt to study their mother tongue, if other than English, as a Language A1 SL, enabling our international students to build their oral and writing skills in their own first language while strengthening their proficiency in English. Students may also choose to take IB certificates in individual subjects instead of the full IB Diploma. Any IB course work done at the HL may earn transfer credits at university and is recognized by the federal government as post-secondary study.
IB General Regulations
Creativity, Action and Service (CAS)
As part of its goal to educate the whole person and foster compassionate, responsible, globally aware citizens, the International Baccalaureate Diploma has the additional feature of a Creativity, Action and Service (CAS) component. This requires that each student be engaged in a personal program of personal growth over two years in creative or artistic projects, sports and community service activities. The activities are evenly balanced over the three areas and students monitor their own progress using an online system called ManageBAC and through meetings and feedback from the CAS Coordinator, Bryan MacKinnon. The requirement is completed in the spring term of the final year through a self reflection and exit interview.
IB Diploma Programme (DP) Graduate Destination Survey
Some important findings include:
The average acceptance rate of DP students into university/college is higher than the average acceptance rate of the total population.
University of Alberta, University of British Columbia, and University of Toronto are popular destinations for DP students.
96% of respondents feel very well or well prepared for future studies.
Over 60% of respondents would either actively encourage or encourage others to undertake the IB Diploma Programme.
Over 50% of respondents plan to study abroad during university years.
IB Recognition Summary
The following chart summarizes the IB recognition from all Canadian universities, including admission, scholarships, advanced standing, early offers of admission, dedicated counseling and many other advantages.
IB Recognition Summary Charts
The schedule for upcoming IB examinations is available here and on our school calendar.
Admissions Links