Vermont will cover $10K of expenses for people who move there and work remotely
work.qz.com
work.qz.com
> (3) The Agency shall award grants under the Program on a first-come, first-served basis, subject to available funding, as follows: (A) not more than $125,000.00 in calendar year 2019...
With such a small budget, it seems like the actual intent may have been to allocate up to $125K to generate advertising about their state.
https://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Documents/2018/Docs/B...
Part of the reasoning given in the article is to shore up the "rapidly sinking tax base" of the state and it reminds me that we don't have a good example of governments that both grow and shrink based on the economic activity of the state. That is something that could really help areas remain stable for longer periods of time I expect.
The "pro-tax" people in my area are also generally against this sort of thing, because they want nothing more than to take more money and spend it on special constituencies.
For example, my state passed a sales tax that was sold to us as a way to better preserve our parks, wild lands and cultural heritage. About 19% has gone to the DNR, which means less actually went to the stated cause. The rest is being funneled to art projects that are poorly received and utilized.
Mind you, this is in a state that's very pro-taxation, and otherwise very liberal.
12 states, mostly low tax states. Texas has 2, both from the 19th Century.
That has changed in the past 100 years, especially in the New World. You no longer have to worry about your towns being burned down by an invading army (not in the developed world at least). The systems and thinking that we have in place for governing have just never dealt with this problem before.
I do hope that it changes in the near future as we see the inevitable decline in many, many rural communities in the US and the hyper-growth of urban conglomerates. It would be nice if Governments could plan for a gradual decline in the population and ensure that basic city services would survive the decline by investing judiciously, rather than try to reverse the trend with expensive gimmicks to attract people that lose money, make the communities financially insolvent and basically increase their misery.
> Vermont has budgeted grants for about 100 new remote workers in the first three years of the program and about 20 additional workers per year for every year after.
Vermont lost 10,000 working-age residents over the past five years.[1] This plan will (in theory) recover just ~1% of that.
Maybe they're monitoring reactions to this announcement before they put more money into the program? Otherwise I don't see how this is supposed to make any difference to their problem.
[1] https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/money/2016/07/21/v...
Burlington is a cool little city and the countryside is beautiful as well. If they can use a small program like this to stimulate some cadre of "pioneers", they'll get alot of value, and perhaps some improved outlooks for underutilized former IBM people.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica...
Anyway, there are quite a few NOAA SNOTEL sites all over that have reliable data and for sure snow pack is on a decline, and there's also USDA NRCS who use that data and publish agricultural specific interpretations of it. Further, due to budget constraints, some of these data may stop being tracked and produced altogether.
https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/gis/images/co_swepctnor...
https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/gis/images/mt_swepctnor...
Note the notice under the date.
Crazy.
I can actually (and have) walked to Edgewater.
I was definitely not being completely honest, but there is an insane number of people in Hudson county, it's surprising there aren't offices for corworking spaces. But I guess because of the demographics and most people absolutely not being in tech is the answer.
Can you elaborate on the slow death spiral of agriculture part? Are you talking about the effects of globalization factory farms or something else specific to Vermont/Northesat?
Dairy is dying for various reasons, and supplemental sources of income like Maple sugaring are impacted by climate change.
Vegetable businesses are tough as well as plots are small and you cannot compete with massive agribusinesses in California and South America.
I'm not sure where you are coming up with that. In fact many places in the NE have have multiple top 10 all time snowfalls in the last 10 years.
Climate change is expected to increase the precipitation in New England, particularly in the winter and the temperature increase can result in more snow due to the increased ability of the air to hold moisture. In general we'll probably have better skiing for the next few decades at which point snow _may_ start to be replaced with rain, depending on how high the temp goes where you happen to be.
That is a really weird paper, basically they are assuming that the 98-99 season is representative of some abstract season in the 2040-2069 time period which is at best a questionable assumption. But even with the questionability they are showing a 8-10day decrease sometime in 2040-2069?
I think they also leave out major changes in snowmaking. The mountains I visit have lost a lot of access to snowmaking due to regulations limiting their water use and changes to what bacterium are used for nucleation.
The temperature swings are in some cases actually a benefit for season longevity. What you often want is a good dumping early in the season and then some rain / wet snow followed by a freeze to build a good hard base for later in the season.
Starting with a small sum makes sense, and for every remote worker they attract there might be a spouse, very likely children and suddenly you have two jobs generated on top for free.
I've just received my Danish startup visa. It may seem that every European country is trying to hand these out like candy, but my batch was capped at 50 visas.
It makes sense to start these types programmes out small and observe the ramifications. Cash-for-clunkers is a good example of a large scale program going wrong, where massive funds were allocated to buy back unused cars.
http://money.cnn.com/gallery/smallbusiness/2012/10/15/state-...
>>The income tax has a top rate of 8.95%. This ranks as the sixth-highest in the U.S., although it only applies to taxpayers making over $413,350 per year. Meanwhile, total state and local sales taxes range from 6% to 7%.
>>There are five income brackets. The highest marginal rate is 8.95% on any income over $388,350. That's on top of federal income taxes.
>>Businesses pay an effective property tax rate of 5.27%, the third highest in the country.
>>At 6%, sales taxes are also on the high side. Meanwhile, those businesses that pay corporate taxes get hit with an 8.5% rate for any profit made above $25,000.
The point isn't to get everyone to move, but to motivate some people who otherwise like what Vermont has to offer but are on the edge. If you are more on the European democratic socialist end of the spectrum of preferences and you plan to live in the US, Vermont will probably suit you. If you're on the right-to-workers end, you'd probably prefer someplace else.
I've lived in other places as well, always moving for school, employment, or, when I was younger, someone else's school or employment. I found that I could telecommute, though, and so we moved to a place we wanted to be for its own sake.
The things I like about Vermont: the climate, the culture, the natural and built environment. And frankly I like living in a place where I don't have to apologize for the cruel, exploitative history or the short-sighted or selfish political decisions of the populace. It's beautiful. There's a lot of art. My kids' school has great teachers, great facilities, and a lot of options. I have family who moved to the area, so that helps. The food is good. I walk into town to work. I can walk out my back door with my kids and hike to the top of a hill and have a beautiful view. I can take the bus home in the evening if the weather is bad. (I don't telecommute anymore, though I can work from home when I please.) We were living in a basement in DC. Now we have a house beside a brook.
Source: Vermont resident with a local IT career
Normally someone may work remotely in a more rural place for cheap housing, but some of the housing in Vermont isn't that cheap.
Burlington has some of the same housing issues that other cities in the county have. I would imagine the vast majority of people who would consider doing this plan would want to live near Burlington. Well, that means Burlington would need to address housing supply and affordability too.
What’s life like in Vermont?
As for rent, a nice 3BR goes for around 2-3k/mo in Burlington and gets substantially cheaper the farther south you look. It's not the cheapest nor most expensive state to live in, but the price:quality of life ratio is excellent.
But let me tell you about Montpelier, the smallest state capitol in the country and the only one without a McDonald's. I think it is the best small community in the world, however this is coming from someone who has not lived many places. Near Montpelier things are a little cheaper (depending on how near) and if you go out 15 minutes drive or more prices begin dropping drastically. Montpelier has at least one of everything you need: Mexican place, one sushi restaurant, one pharmacy, one grocery store, one co-op, etc. It does not have much for shopping, which is true of all of central Vermont but there is a Walmart in neighboring Berlin.
If you want somewhere close to cool community events but super-cheap look into Barre, which is Montpelier's sister community--but it's that sister who has had a bit of a 'failure to launch' and everyone suspects is doing drugs. Houses are dirt cheap in Barre and it is 15-minutes drive to cool things in Montpelier. And while there are more 'bad elements' in Barre, it also has a ton of really cool people not on drugs, raising families and I believe things are starting to happen there.
Both Montpelier and Burlington are great for liberal-minded, community-oriented persons, Montpelier being a bit more into it. Burlington seems to be mostly made up of out-of-staters and can seem quiet transient as they come and go, where more people seem to stick around longer in Montpelier. If you are like this and live in Barre you will have to seek out your kind, but there are plenty there.
Vermont is great if you love the idea of hiking, snowshoeing, cross country skiing, of owning a few acres with your own woods on them. Vermonters, especially rural Vermonters, pride themselves on minding their own business and letting everyone do whatever they want as long as they aren't bothering anyone else too much. Also we just legalized growing a few pot plants at home for your own recreational use, if you're into that.
I spent a few weeks recently bumming around the state.
1) Contrary to what Vermonters may think, real estate in Vermont is expensive. Not NYC or SF expensive but none the less very expensive unless it is in a totally need to be burned and rebuilt state.
2) Property taxes are ridiculous. Every time I look at a property I compare its property taxes to property taxes of comparable properties in other areas. Vermont loses to New York! It also loses to New Hampshire. Let this sink in - NH makes most of its revenue from property taxes and property taxes there are still smaller.
3) I put about 800 miles on my car in Vermont. One of the things I really pay attention to is overhead cables. Guess what? Outside what Vermont considers "major cities" cable break out and fiber break out boxes are nearly non-existent. Sat dishes everywhere sort of confirm the point. Internet connections in both random AirBNBs and regular BnBs sucked. Not the Amtrak level bad but close ( after I was done with Vermont I went to New Hampshire. Cable fiber boxes where everywhere and every place I was in had a very decent internet connectivity )
4) Going out costs major $$. New York/Philadelphia level $$. For definitely not New York/Philadelphia level of variety or convenience.
How are you defining "smaller"? NH is #2 and VT #9 at http://www.tax-rates.org/taxtables/property-tax-by-state
To be fair, there's areas in NY with their own city or county property taxes on top of it. Westchester has, last I looked, the highest property taxes in the country.
The more cynical view is that this was done on purpose to harm blue states that tend to have higher state income taxes
this could very well be true, but it does seem unfair in the first place to be able to deduct state income tax. it's great that some states have decided to increase their income taxes to offer more services to their citizens, but why should tax payers in other states have to subsidize them without receiving any benefit?
still, this is a valid point. the net flow of cash is certainly an important thing to consider, but i do think it is worth making the distinction between federal and state taxes. i happen to live in a (very blue) state that receives more federal dollars than we pay in taxes. if i lived in a creditor state, i would certainly not be thrilled with the situation, but i would accept that the tax is raised (at least ostensibly) for the national interest and may not be spent evenly among the states. state taxes, on the other hand, are raised exclusively for the benefit of that state. we can argue about how to allocate federal dollars most fairly, but i really feel that state taxes should not be directly subsidized by citizens of other states.
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-s...
I'm not sure how I feel about the concept, but one rationalization is that if a basic need, like road funding, is suitably taken care of at the state level by high state income taxes, then the state needs less federal funding. It's sort of a usage qualifier I guess.
The argument for the deduction, which has always existed, is to prevent people from being double taxed. A higher-tax state may tax its citizens to pay for infrastructure or services, whereas a low-tax state relies on the federal government to pay for the same stuff. There are tons of people in poverty in a lot of southern lower-tax states. Who do you think pays for all of the government services these people need?
The tax plan was specifically designed to harm blue states and to make residents of blue states pay and even higher, even less balanced share of tax receipts in the country.
Triple is a little hyperbolic, as you could probably best describe it with a number between 2 and 3 depending on the tax rate.
Otherwise, they're competing with employer-provided health insurance, which is already tax-exempt. That gives employer-provided insurance a huge artificial advantage and makes single-payer a lot more expensive in comparison.
Edit: others pointed out that this deduction is now capped, which I didn’t realize.
Under some circumstances it may still make sense to take the up-to-$10k deduction, because it may be combined with other deductions which will add up to more than the standard deduction, but for someone paying much less than $10k in state taxes it is probably more advantageous to simply take the standard deduction, and for someone paying much more than $10k the deduction may only represent a small portion of their state taxes.
Not necessarily. Illinois spends roughly half its budget on pensions. In New York, where I don't need a car and can offload much of what I'd hire a lawyer for onto regulators, I get a decent bang for my buck. (Though we still have horrendous waste.)
Some societies think that it is wise to spend on some things such as education (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/02/the-...). Others think that lowering taxes at whatever cost is better. The former fits with my thinking, which is why I like it here.
It's a little more nuanced than that, and not necessarily an either/or as you have described it. More than likely in my experience, the people who think lowering taxes is good think so because they view the government as an inefficient, third-party spender and believe the money could be better spent more wisely elsewhere. While Vermont does rank high in K-12 (4th), it is ranked 36th in higher education. Vermont is also the 2nd least populated state in the country, so it remains to be seen how scale will impact the education system there.
The government is made up of people. In my experience, it isn't the funding amount that correlates with inefficiencies, it's the distance from accountability that does.
So one can reduce the taxes all one likes, a 30% wasteful department is still going to waste 30%. I'd rather target the inefficiencies themselves.
People say that, but then they privatize functions of government, and if they're lucky, they end up with the same level of service. And then now there's a middleman involved who needs to get profit, meaning wages and service get cut.
You Don't Always Get What You Pay For The Economics of Privatization by Elliott D. Sclar
http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=8014010029039...
And income is one thing. Should those taxes add value, the actual difference in effective buying power, or ability to save may be marginal.
89% of all education budget increases went straight to pension funding, with only 11% to the classroom. They already spend far more than other midwest states, with outcomes that lag behind Montana, Minnesota, and other frugal states.
So while I agree that education spending is critical to our future, money alone is not the magic wand.
[1] https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/pensions-vs-schools/
https://blog.prepscholar.com/average-sat-and-act-scores-by-s...
What does Vermont have to show for its higher spending? Why do you see higher spending as an automatically good thing if it doesn't have any evidence of having a beneficial effect?
Not paying taxes is cool but the annual discussion of "Which completely normal public service will we forgo or curtail this year?" isn't so awesome.
The table you link to shows Vermont coming in #12 in SAT scores, and I'll accept that for it is. Other sites (e.g. US News and World Report) typically ranks us in the top ten for our educational system. It is not unheard of for us to be ranked #1:
https://www.alec.org/press-release/state-education-ranking-s...
My point is, I do not understand how you can be so fixated on NH finishing six places ahead of VT and not actually asking the bigger question of "How do two small rural states even begin to compete?" Let alone trying to decipher why New England consistently does so well overall with Massachusetts and Connecticut ranked #1 and #2.
Vermont is a high tax state, fine. I more than get my money's worth. As someone that goes to Town Meeting Day and looks through the budget every year I know that I head home secure that my dollars are being well spent. Meeting my kid's teachers at school I know they are getting a very solid education and heading off to university next year.
Both are highly ranked for k-12. The difference in scores you are touting is 8 points.
There are more reasons other than taxation to consider moving. When I moved countries, I didn't even consider taxation when I moved. I make enough money that I'm comfortable, a couple of grand here and there isn't going to upset me. When I moved, it was for lifestyle reasons, which I think is the only sensible reason to move. If you're moving to Vermont to work remotely as an attempt at saving/earning more money, you're going to have a miserable time.
$0 - $37,650 3.55% $37,650 - $91,150 6.80% $91,150 - $190,150 7.80% $190,150 - $413,350 8.80% $413,350+ 8.95%
I do wonder why they only mentioned the tax rates for people making ~400k a year.
The brain drain is real. I am leaving the state soon because I simply cannot relate to people and culture up here. (Note, this is for people who are < 35. There are a lot more >35 year olds up here with families who I never met). There's an inverse bell curve of age distribution.
I've discovered slightly above average intelligent people up here think they are much smarter than they are, due to the people/coworkers they are surrounded by. I've only met three highly intelligent people in my two years here. Two of them are also leaving within a year.
It's a shame, because Burlington is easily the most beautiful city I have lived in. Bike trails boarder the lake and outdoor recreation are all within an hour's drive. The produce up here is the best I've had (like wow, can't go back good). The restaurant cuisines up here are diverse and plentiful (although the quality is lacking for some reason). Everything is so green up here. The weather is usually great.
It's a place to retire and maybe raise family, if you can handle the snow. Otherwise, if you're a younger adult with drive and ambition, you will not enjoy your stay.
Bonus: While we have all the winter mountain sports here at their highest levels, there's also 300 days of sunshine and much higher average winter temperatures where I now live! Good luck breaking single digit temps (F) in the worst winter months in Northern VT.
People who: /what VT is missing is:
- Can process what one is saying in real time and propose alternative view points or point out flaws in one's logic in seconds.
- Are capable of thinking outside of the box. Some puzzle pieces will never be found because they need to be created first.
- Have drive and ambition to do things other than watch TV/go to the beach/get high or drink after work.
- Interest in furthering their education/knowledge/life goals. Complacency is very common.
- People who are unafraid of their viewpoints being challenged/analyzed; unafraid to rationalize their beliefs.
- Self awareness/presence.
In saying all of this, I do not look down on people for their life choices. They just live a simpler life than I can be comfortable with.
Many people simply talk much slower, drone on, and are not socially aware of when a conversation becomes one-sided. I'm used to fast talking, quick-witted New Jersey style conversations. At work I'm often engulfed with these 5 minute lectures about random garbage that I don't particularly care for.
Does this mean you have a local job, or working remotely/commuting?
Vermont is very insecure about its ability to "hold on" to its young people. Probably for a good reason, because the majority of young persons who remain in the state after high school are the ones who only graduate from high school.
I'm interested to see how this scheme works for the state. I'd assume their goal is to bring college-educated young persons to the state.
I am also born and raised New England, NH and ME could also benefit from this type of program (although Portland seems to be more up and coming). There's a lot of really good reasons to escape the Boston bubble, but unfortunately companies are holding tight to brick and mortar operations in the 'hip' downtown neighborhoods.
I've done both, a lot for those smart young people you mention, often lack hobbies, and those ones are extremely boring. I'd rather remote in from a mountain town where I can ski, mountain bike and hike than suffer year round with decreased QoL of a city.
A good chunk of the EEs where I went to school were doing it instead of CS because there were fewer CS options that didn't involve moving to a culturally incompatible city.
edit: The clock strikes lunchtime in SV and suddenly everything I posted today gets down-voted. It kind of illustrates my point about culture compatibility.
Unfortunately, I discovered the hard way that the problem they are trying to solve is likely far more intractable than that program.
I co-founded a software/networking biz in VT some years ago. We really thought it was great, loved the lifestyle -- e.g., literally step out the door at lunch for a run or mtn bike in the woods, or walking meetings in the fields or woods -- just awesome!
We thought it'd be easy to convince others to come up and grow with us.
Wrong.
Ultimately had to move to north of Boston, then grew & sold.
I really wish more people would 'get it', but it just didn't work that way. Seeing that socialization seems paradoxically more city-oriented now despite far better connectivity tech, I'm even less optimistic now about it.
I really hope I'm wrong and they can kickstart a tech-in-the-woods common lifestyle... and at least with this program, a few dozen people will enjoy some great years there!
CT is not the place for starting a modern tech company.
So only 33 people will access this opportunity for next year. And we have to assume these will be very young people who intend to stay there and repopulate the state?
http://www.greenriver.com/jobs
Edit: On the article: COL is similar to Boston in Brattleboro (for the nice lifestyle that we expect as devs) but in different areas. You need a car for any real transportation and while rents and house prices are less other things are more (internet, heat, etc). There are 3-4 cafes not hundreds. There is a surprising amount of art and theater events and you discover that folks do some amazing things here in the woods. e.g. Parts for the Mars Rovers were made 100ft from my desk. My kids can take circus classes from former Circ du Soleil leads down the street. As a kid I took ski jumping lessons a mile from here from a Olympic medalist. And folks have weird job histories. The woman who runs the stables where my daughter takes horse back riding lessons was a developer on HP-UX in the early days
Having said that: I've been to Vermont in the Fall, and it. is. stunning.
It isn’t bad at all, but it will never compete with the Rockies.
Yep. I learned to snowboard on the east coast and when I came out west, I was amazed at how much "better" I was overnight. I really am better now, but it doesn't hurt to have good snow.
All of the good skiing in the rockies is in areas where it can easily go weeks without it getting above freezing.
Maybe a quick trip with a few gallons of permethrin. Live there? With kids?? Nope.
I really enjoyed my first trip to to Boston/Portland/Acadia, but TBH, the more rural areas felt a lot more like a Disneyland version of nature curated for tourists from the "big city". It didn't live up to the hype, which I think is targeted at people who have lived in the hyper-dense-and-flat Boston/DC/NYC area and nowhere else.
I'm really not trying to dump on the area, it was quite nice, I'm just saying no more so than most rural places I'm used to. Of the whole trip, frankly, Portland was my favorite. It felt "just right" in terms of size and culture.
State is offering to cover costs of computer hardware, internet, co-working rental space, and relocation. (Max $5k/yr)
Coming from a relatively rural area, Burlington appears to be thriving, tech savvy and a wonderful place for a young person. I went to school there in the late 90's and just recently visited with my kids and was blown away by the growth outside the city downtown. My wife and I both were intrigued at the idea of living there and wondered if the town/city could support our small business.
However, reading comments from those used to Boston, San Fran or even those who have lived IN Burlington paints a very different picture.
I think if you're coming from a rural area, Burlington is a massive upgrade. However don't expect big-city tech infrastructure or any sort of comparable startup scene if your benchmark are the East/West tech hubs.
Even if your only consideration is your income, tax rates are a very small part of this. If you pay no local taxes but have to hire someone to clear the snow and blowdowns off your road, you're still out that money. If you have no town water or sewer, you have to pay someone to provide and maintain those services. Very few people consider only tax burden when choosing where to live. If that were so, people would be flocking to Kansas instead of San Francisco.
The larger point, though, is that some people will be closer to the decision boundary and $10k will move the boundary far enough to put them over.
New Hampshire still has municipal services despite much lower taxes. Of course, it varies but for someone making over $120k a year (many people in tech) the income tax is a huge lifetime burden that can likely eclipse any out-of-pocket differences.
Not everyone wants to work for SV firm, much less in SV.
and otherwise a matter of luck.
Those are the top six cities by population, and the top two put together are about the same as my suburb of Boston. St. Albans is about 30 minutes from Burlington and an hour and a bit from Montreal; you can get access to culture and technology, but you'll need to drive.
But yes, if you are in a random small town or rural area the odds aren't great for decent internet. (For that matter, that even applies to cell phone service, lots of dead zones in VT).
Free land if you move to the Yukon to do farming: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-farming-landrights...
And then there's Shenzhen's peacock plan to attract foreign experts for high-tech startups, 6 figures USD for individuals who meet certain criteria, and millions USD for teams: http://www.china-briefing.com/news/2017/08/01/incentives-she...
Even today, there are places in America (and elsewhere) that will give you land or money if you promise to build a house on it, or turn it into a farm, or stay there for x number of years, what have you.
She loved the work, the state got a motivated Nurse. Win-win.
I was really surprised by how nice AL was too last time I drove through it. All that said, if I go back south, it will be hard to not pick NC. Asheville doesn't have much industry for tech, but it's exactly the kind of culture (hippies, artists, bluegrass, great food) and weather I've been missing. Cost of living is high by NC standards, but not for remote workers. Definitely more appealing than Vermont for most folks who don't need to be near Boston or NYC.
The IT (and "professional") economy is quite weak. There's a couple bigger web companies, however I know at least one of the biggest off-shores development.
Otherwise, a lot of the professional economy is just satellite of the tourism industry.
I read recently the superintendent of Burlington schools (Burlington being the big city in Vermont where the university is located) was traveling to China to help recruit high school students.
It's a beautiful, mostly rural place - but it's not surprising these initiatives are being taken.
It's basically a win from every angle, and I'm surprised more cities and states don't already have programs like this one.
I just moved for my wife's job. We really like Stowe and wanted to end up close by.
(I'm tired of moving and won't move again.)
$10000 does not even buy you a decent cheap car.
Most of northern new England looks at Boston/MA and sees high cost of living, government that micromanages individuals and lots of crime. Having lived in various places in MA (including Boston) as well as NH, VT and ME I'm inclined to agree. Boston has jobs and nothing else.
Ask people who grew up in NH, VT, ME what kind of people make the place worse and they won't say baby boomers with backwards beliefs, blacks, or bigots, they'll say "Massholes."
Just from living among and talking to people in ME/VT/NH states you'll quickly get the sense that it's not the material difference that make them like the place but the cultural ones. Many people choose to live in ME, NH and VT specifically because they do not have the same busybody, sort of socialist culture (cut me some slack, it's a nebulous and hard to pin down difference) as MA.
Trying to be culturally like Boston will be the death of these states. Seriously, they're biggest industry is tourism and part of the selling point is culture and image. Part of the "branding" of northern New England is that it's a land of freedom compared to MA. You can buy beer at the grocery store, light off fireworks without cops showing up and park a project car on your lawn without your neighbors trying to get the town to bend an obscure and irreverent by law to harass you. Whether these differences are material or not doesn't matter, they're part of the branding. If people wanted to go vacation in the woods and wanted to do it in MA they could head west on I-90. If people wanted to go to the beach and do it in MA they could do it on the south-coast or cape cod.
I could go on and on and on about how to the people in NH/VT/ME the culture is more important than the money, sure they want money too but you'd be hard pressed to find someone from one of those states that thinks any amount of money or economic development is worth letting the place turn into MA.
Yes I know that a lot of you might not be able to relate to this sentiment at all but encouraging people from MA to move to NH/VT/ME is a very thorny subject for most people in NH/VT/ME
I get that ~30-something people per year isn't much but it's the sentiment of "we should be like Boston because money" (which is a prerequisite to "we should be an attractive place for people with money from Boston to relocate) is dangerous (yes I know there's nothing stopping people who are from northern New England but suffering through living in MA because that's where the jobs are from taking advantage of this program). I think the focus should be on retaining talent, not importing it.
To all the people mentioning that the CoL in Vermont is fairly high for how rural it is, well you can thank NY for that. Upstate NY and VT have their CoL inflated by all the NYC money that wants to have a vacation home or retire away from the problem. Pretty much any "tourist" destination that an upper middle class couple with kids can drive to for a weekend will have this issue. Look at housing land prices in ME and driving time to Boston for example.
Agreed about the impact of 30 people being negligible (and some of them will probably be people who are from VT and want to move back but need a little extra incentive to kick off the process)
That said, the fact that they're looking to import talent instead of retain local talent is what annoys me. There's plenty of STEM grads who don't want to leave northern New England but feel forced to in order to make money.
Totally - I always felt frustrated and even shocked there wasn't any organized/concerted effort to do so!
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/drug_poisoning_mor...
There are a lot of reasons why I won't move to a lot of places. Mainly, they're money-related, but it's a big world, and it often pays to be somewhat selective regarding the location issues that concern you most.