Massachusetts could be even more innovative if they banned noncompetes. EMC is the biggest employer lobbying to keep noncompetes in the state. Dell, based in Texas will probably want to keep noncompetes in place as well.
That's quite surprising achievement considering their surface area and pop size which both relative to CA, are small. And given the CA propaganda, doubly surprising. On the other hand, they have some great higher ed institutions.<p>By propaganda I mean the constant CA self congratulatory atmosphere, we're the best, most innovative, always at the forefront of cool, if we were a nation we'd rank... economically, etc...<p>Good on you bay state.
These rankings are pretty meaningless.<p>All of these metrics except for productivity are "density" measures. That is the size of the state matters (in a way that penalizes states with larger, more diverse economies).<p>A better ranking would be to use CSAs. Industry clusters are based more on region than states. State borders are relatively arbitrary with respect to technology clusters. CSAs are based on commute times so better reflect industry clustering.<p>Having said all that, I think MA is great. If I didn't hate the cold weather and East coast cultural conservatism I would consider moving to the Boston area.
Boston is filled with college students and skilled professionals. The skilled professionals work in tech, biotech, finance, and healthcare primarily. Boston is an amazing city that any one who is tiring of the SF/SV scene should seriously consider.
MA beat out CA in the following categories:<p>* Percentage of state GDP spent in R&D.<p>* Percentage of "tech" companies vs total companies. This counts software, hardware, defense, pharmaceutical, biotech, renewable energy, etc.<p>* GDP / employed person.<p>* Percentage of STEM employees / total employees.<p>CA beat MA in the following categories:<p>* Percentage of STEM degree holders / total population.<p>* Patents / US Total and Patents / million people.<p>All categories were equally weighted.
It would be interesting to add a column of average income tax rates. At a glance, it seems like higher tax states tend to have more innovation, but that could just be my own bias.<p>(Correlation isn't sufficient to show causation, but it would show that taxes don't have a negative effect on innovation as many anti-tax proponents would argue.)
Contributing to the ranking of MA is probably Boston's "Innovation District"[0] that has been renovating some of the less-nice parts of the South Boston waterfront area.<p>[0] <a href="http://www.innovationdistrict.org/faq/" rel="nofollow">http://www.innovationdistrict.org/faq/</a>
I don't understand the point of things like these. You could choose any set metrics or variables that you want. How do we know these arbitrary categories are actually associated with a meaningful outcome? This is silly
Ah, well. Only one reaction possible. I like to think this is how Gov. Brown handled the news:<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i51lXfc2zDw" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i51lXfc2zDw</a>