New Geography

Category: Politics

  • Confirming International Research: Hudson Tunnel Costs Explode

    Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey is looking like a prophet now. In late October, the Governor cancelled a new tunnel across the Hudson River between New Jersey and New York City, because of the potential for cost overruns, which would be the responsibility of New Jersey taxpayers. By that point, the cost of the tunnel had escalated at least $1 billion to $9.7 billion. The tunnel was to have doubled New Jersey Transit and Amtrak capacity into Penn Station from New Jersey.

    Now Amtrak proposes to build the tunnel itself, a scaled down version of the previous tunnel. The new tunnel would increase capacity for New Jersey Transit and Amtrak trains by 65 percent.

    However, the cost is not scaled down. For one-third less the capacity, initial estimates place the cost of the new tunnel at 40 percent more ($13.5 billion) than the already escalated cost of the cancelled tunnel.

    Of course, it is likely that if planning and construction proceed, the cost of the tunnel could increase substantially beyond initial estimate. This virtual inevitability is indicated in international research by Oxford University professor Bengt Flyvbjerg and others.

  • Brown’s California Budget Proposals: a Big Step in the Right Direction

    I admit it. I had low expectations for Jerry Brown’s third term as governor. After seeing his budget proposal, I’m ready to reconsider my expectations. I think it is a great effort, and it deserves the support of all of us tired of seeing our state reduced to laughing stock.

    Being an economist, I first went to the Economic Outlook section of the Proposed Budget Summary. This is where governors put in rosy expectations and forecasts, thus enabling a multitude of fiscal sins. I was shocked to find a realistic and sober economic analysis. In fact the U.S. and California GDP projections were lower than ours, and we are among the least optimistic forecasters in America. There is no smoke here. There are no mirrors. It is apparent to me that if Brown is to be surprised, he only wants good ones.

    This may be the most honest forecast accompanying a proposed budget that Californian’s have seen in decades.

    The realistic economic forecast leads, reasonably, to lower budget revenue assumptions, lower by billions of dollars. With more realistic revenue assumptions, Brown forecasts a larger budget problem than did his more easily deluded predecessor.

    Then, Brown demonstrates that he’s learned some things over his lifetime in politics. He splits the budget problem in half, proposing cuts for half of the problem and proposing extending temporary taxes for the other half. Predictably, the dinosaurs in both parties howled.

    The howling was all for show.

    The Democrats can’t possibly believe that they can solve California’s budget problems by raising taxes. California is already one of the United States most difficult places to establish and maintain a business, burdened as it is by an expensive soup consisting of delay, uncertainty, regulation, and among the nation’s highest marginal tax rates. Increasing taxes to solve the deficit would only further weaken California’s already ailing economy, ultimately resulting in lower state revenues and new budget shortfalls. It would be a self-reinforcing death spiral.

    The Republicans are, if anything, even more disingenuous. After telling us for months, on a national level, that allowing temporary tax cuts to expire is a tax increase, they now want us to believe that extending a temporary tax is a tax increase. I have news for them. People aren’t that stupid. If allowing temporary tax cuts to expire is a tax increase, allowing temporary taxes to expire is a tax cut. Extending the temporary taxes is simply not cutting taxes. Calling it a tax increase insults our intelligence. Reducing revenues when the budget is so imbalanced would be irresponsible.

    Then, there is the composition of the cuts. Deciding where to cut government spending is extremely difficult. Cutting any spending is going to hurt someone, which means that every nickel has a constituency. Here again, Brown showed his savvy by exempting K-12 education, placing himself in the calculated intersection of economic virtue and political expediency.

    If I was going to prioritize government spending by its impact on future government budgets, I would prioritize those spending items that prevented future costs and increased future revenues. Given the high social and government costs associated with failed educational outcomes–teen pregnancies, high crime, low productivity–there is a strong practical incentive to improve educational outcomes. To the extent that K-12 educational spending improves outcomes, preserving that spending makes strong economic sense, though the research is far from conclusive that spending does improve educational outcomes.

    Politically, preserving K-12 spending is probably necessary if Brown is to have a successful governorship. Schwarzenegger provides the counter example. His governorship was doomed after the 2005 special election. Each of Schwarzenegger’s 2005 proposals had merit, but by bringing all of them to the voters at one time, he committed the tactical error that destroyed his governorship. He allowed the enemies of each proposal to band together, and they mugged him.

    When the dust settled, Schwarzenegger was as badly beaten as any of his action-film opponents. The Terminator became Arnold, and Arnold didn’t look very tough. He abandoned any real effort to deal with California’s budget issues, searching instead for a legacy built on imposing a green wish list of environmental regulation.

    In contrast, Brown showed his street smarts and sidestepped the problem of fighting too many constituencies. Like an aging martial artist, he channeled their energy to his benefit. Instead of fighting the powerful K-12 education lobby, he can count on them helping him convince California voters to extend the temporary taxes. They know what a failure to extend the temporary tax means for them- and their children.

    I do have one problem with Brown’s proposal. I see the cuts as a down payment on California’s budget issue, and the expiration of the temporary taxes as the due date for the balance. I would have preferred to have the due date come in Brown’s term, say in three years instead of five. As it is, if the temporary taxes are extended, Brown has put the budget problem behind him, and he has no incentive to finish the job. That will be up to the next governor.

    But by putting the budget behind him, Brown will be free to deal with California’s other big problem, its economy. California, with all its natural advantages and former economic glory, has managed to become one of the Unites States basket cases, with extraordinary unemployment, decimated real estate markets, and an accelerating stream of businesses and individuals leaving the state. If Brown can deal as adroitly with the economy as he has with the budget, he can go down as one of California’s great governors — with a legacy more akin to his father Pat Brown than the one Jerry accumulated in his first two terms.

    Bill Watkins is a professor at California Lutheran University and runs the Center for Economic Research and Forecasting, which can be found at clucerf.org.

    Photo by Troy Holden

  • The Social Side of the Internet

    Is success in social networking measured by the number of “Friends” you have on Facebook, or “Followers” you have on Twitter, or “Connections” you make on LinkedIn? 

    The jury is still out on how social media and social networking will ultimately play out, but new research shows real benefits are being realized from it.

    A Harris Poll conducted December 6-10, 2010 found, “Social media has opened the door, or more accurately, many doors, to increasingly numerous ways for people to interact with others, customize their online experiences and receive positive, enriching benefits from their activity therein.  In fact, two in five Americans say that they have received a good suggestion for something to try as a result of their use of social media (40%).”

    A generation gap remains, but the mere fact that “Matures” are involved in social media constitutes news.  The Harris study reports, “A majority of Echo Boomers (those 18-33) say they have received a positive suggestion for something to try from their activity on social media (59%), compared to 44% of Gen Xers (those 34-45), one third of Baby Boomers (those 46-64) (34%), and just one in five Matures (those 65 and older) (19%).”

    Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project found that social media’s benefits to groups are now widely recognized by both Internet users and non-users.  The study, The Social Side of the Internet, was released on January 18, 2011 and can be found at PewInternet.org.  The general findings state, “The internet is now deeply embedded in group and organizational life in America.

    Pew studied groups and found in part:

    • 68% of all Americans (internet users and non-users alike) said the internet has had a major impact on the ability of groups to communicate with members. Some 75% of internet users said that.
    • 62% of all Americans said the internet has had a major impact on the ability of groups to draw attention to an issue. Some 68% of internet users said that.
    • 60% of all Americans said the internet has had a major impact on the ability of groups to connect with other groups. Some 67% of internet users said that.
    • 59% of all Americans said the internet has had a major impact on the ability of groups to impact society at large. Some 64% of internet users said that.
    • 59% of all Americans said the internet has had a major impact on the ability of groups to organize activities. Some 65% of internet users said that.
    • 52% of all Americans said the internet has had a major impact on the ability of groups to raise money. Some 55% of internet users said that.
    • 51% of all Americans said the internet has had a major impact on the ability of groups to recruit new members. Some 55% of internet users said that.

    Does all this suggest that a shift in communications is now upon us?  I believe the answer is an unqualified yes.  Many experts predict that by 2014 the whole concept of the “new media” and the “social net” will have lost their novelty status as they become fixtures of American business, communications and life.

    Many forward thinking companies are moving aggressively to position themselves for this shift.  They are beginning to purpose their content for real-time, anytime, two-way dialogue. They are building communities around their own content.   American Express is doing a great job at OpenForum using content to build community and establish thought leadership within the small business community.

    Why?  The “social net” represents a paradigm shift for an organization.  It is not as much about the technology as it is about integrating a new way of assembling and distributing information in   more open and accessible way.  This shift needs to be incorporated into an organization’s DNA.  This takes time and a total commitment from the organization.

    When the communications shift happens, those organizations that have staged early will realize tremendous benefits.  Those organizations that have not will face a very difficult and time-consuming process of not only integrating new technologies into their organizations, but also assimilating the cultural changes that are needed to make this process successful.

    The social internet is not a mercurial event, but rather a game changer that will impact every aspect of our lives – something already evident but likely to become more obvious.

    Dennis M. Powell is the founder of Massey Powell which provided content logistics services that help organizations ready their content and leverage it into the social media environment.  He invites all New Geography readers to visit http://socialmedianewslink.com to learn more about social media.

    Illustration by Matt Hamm

  • The Death of Earmarks

    Record deficit spending in Washington has many faces: Defense, Medicare, Social Security. But none has received more criticism in recent months than the infamous and notorious earmark. Conjuring up images of “Bridges to Nowhere” or “Teapot Museums”, earmarks, or Congressionally Directed Funding, have become the poster child for irresponsible, out of control, big government spending. But is the earmarking practice by Congressional representatives really pushing our country to the brink of bankruptcy? That is what many critics would have the public believe. By playing on the public’s disgust with overspending and sensationalizing it with examples of wasteful projects that abuse the system, earmarks have been turned into a proverbial whipping boy for all forms of government spending.

    Sources of criticism are not limited to the media or political newcomers trying to make a name by misdirecting supporters from the true causes of our spending crisis. President Obama has recently come out in strong opposition to the earmarking process. During the State of the Union speech, he called for a ban of all earmarks and has threatened to veto any bill that contains them.

    Senator Daniel Inouye (HI), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, issued a statement on February 1 announcing the Committee will place a moratorium on earmarks for the current session of Congress. Yet he does not concede and end the war on earmarks, later committing to revisiting the issue once “the consequences of the decision are fully understood”. I think that what Senator Inouye is trying to say is be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

    Certainly, I am not suggesting that the current level of our federal expenditures is acceptable. But it seems a bit disingenuous to target a spending practice that makes up three tenths of one percent of our federal budget. By comparison, Social Security and Defense spending make up 21 and 20 percent of the federal budget, respectively. Much of the political grandstanding to abolish earmarks is merely distraction from the real cause of damage.

    Eliminating earmarks does not actually curb spending at all. It merely moves the decision of which projects get funded from Congressional members to the administrators of federal agencies. By the time earmarking occurs through the appropriations process, the budgets of the federal agencies have already been authorized. Earmarks merely provide legislators the ability to further divvy up a very small portion of those budgets to meet local needs of those they represent.

    The good projects that benefit our nation and local communities are often overshadowed by the abuses and frivolous projects of a few. But for every “Bridge to Nowhere” there are examples of projects and program that fulfill a specific national interest and uplift local economies. Unfortunately, the examples of money well spent do not garner as much attention as the more rare occasions when taxpayer dollars are frivolously wasted on pet projects.

    Forget about funding directed for regions in need of important flood control projects or high tech vaccine research and development to create life-saving Staph vaccines (the number one killer of wounded soldiers in the battlefield) for the military. These things are not important as long as an abomination like the “Bridge to Nowhere” has been perpetrated upon the taxpaying public. Small businesses and startup companies capable of producing high tech products that the government wants will now suffer as large corporate interests with unfair advantages deploy extensive resources to access fresh funding that now flows through federal agencies located far from Middle America.

    It’s terrible timing for small business. Whispers in the U.S. House of Representatives of the impending doom of the federal Small Business Innovation Research Program could be a double gut punch for small research and manufacturing companies. Small companies get only 4.3% of federal research dollars, but produce five times as many patents per dollar as large companies and 20 times as many as universities.

    What does this mean for local community leaders? Communities and small businesses must become more competitive. With the departure of earmarking, much of this funding will be redirected through agency grant programs. Unfortunately, the pool of recipients is often smaller and is more concentrated in large east and west coast interests. How do small interests compete? Companies may need to invest more time and money into pursuing procurement and contracting opportunities with the federal government. They may need to consider hiring experts to write grants, monitor agency program funding, or hire consultants to broker connections with program directors, contract managers, and decision makers within federal agencies. Often times, half the battle can be won by conveying your message to the proper audience.

    If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then I would suggest that wasteful spending is in the eye of those not receiving it. It has been my experience that the same people denouncing earmarks and government spending are the first ones with their hands out when they catch the slightest whiff of federal funding that may benefit their own interests. “It is not wasteful spending until it goes to someone who isn’t me”.

    The future of earmarks remains an uncertain one. What is certain, however, is that the debate will rage on and good projects, small business and high tech startups will bear the consequences of tired rhetoric and political showmanship.

    Ryan Aasheim is an Associate with Praxis Strategy Group where he works extensively with the Red River Valley Research Corridor technology-based economic development initiative. He was formerly Economic Development Director for U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan.

    Photo by Nick Ares

  • The President’s Unserious Proposal

    "Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail." With this ringing statement in his State of the Union address, President Obama injected new hope into the flagging spirits of high speed rail advocates. Predictably, spokesmen for industry associations, progressive advocacy groups and other stakeholder interests praised the President’s goal as a symbol of his renewed commitment to support investment in infrastructure. But hardly any one we spoke to at the TRB meeting took the President’s ambitious goal seriously.

    "After listening to President Obama’s remarks on high-speed rail, I am left with more questions than answers," observed Rep. Bill Shuster, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who addressed the TRB Committee on Intercity Passenger Rail. "These promises mean little and the White House knows it," observed a railroad industry consultant attending the meeting, "it’s not within Obama’s power to commit future Administrations and Congresses to this pipe dream." "The President is out of touch with reality; where does he think the money will come from?" was a succinct reaction of a former senior U.S. DOT official.

    Lack of a Financial Plan

    There is good reason for these expressions of skepticism. Although some likened President Obama’s expansive vision to President Eisenhower’s historic call for a 42,000-mile Interstate Highway network, there is a vast difference between the two initiatives. The Interstate Highway proposal was backed by a reliable and steady revenue stream in the form of a federal gas tax. The high speed rail goal lacks a financial plan. It is not supported by a dedicated source of revenue that could maintain the program on a self-sustaining basis over a period of years. Nor can the Administration count on borrowed money or annual appropriations out of general revenue in the current political environment in which deficit reduction rather than new spending is the top congressional priority. Calling expenditures on high-speed rail "investment" does not obscure the reality that we would be spending money that we do not have. As if to underscore this point, the Congressional Budget Office announced on January 25 that this year’s federal budget deficit of $1.5 trillion will be the biggest one in history and the largest as a share of the economy since World War II. "Obama’s proposal is likely to land with a dead thud on Capitol Hill," opined National Journal’s transportation editor Fawn Johnson.

    States’ Ambivalence

    A second reason for skepticism is the ambivalent attitude of the states toward high speed rail. As Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph Szabo, speaking at the TRB meeting, correctly pointed out, the high-speed rail initiative is a state-driven program. Hence, support of governors and state legislatures will be essential if the Obama vision is to succeed. But, as we have seen, several fiscally-strapped states (Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa) have declined to participate in the Administration’s HSR program while Florida’s Governor Scott still has to be heard from.

    Other governors and state legislatures may well follow their example should they conclude that high-speed rail projects will burden their constituents with massive annual operating subsidies and possibly open-ended risk of construction overruns. The protracted and still inconclusive track-sharing negotiations with the Class 1 railroads suggest that more than one state is having second thoughts about the wisdom of proceeding with these projects (at least on terms demanded by the Administration). About one-half of the dedicated HSR funds still remain unobligated according to the latest Federal Railroad Administration report.

    Fred W. Frailey, a respected writer and commentator on the railroad industry and author of Twilight of the Great Trains thinks that enthusiasm for high-speed trains has peaked and is on the wane. Writing in the current (March) issue of TRAINS, Frailey says the collapse of support is not merely a partisan event. Election results suggest that the public was never really won over. Nor will the Association of American Railroads or its member railroads fight for HSR. "So anyway you cut it, the high-speed show is over," Frailey concludes.

    A Fresh Congressional Posture

    This does not mean that fast trains will have no role to play in America’s future. There is a need to diversify travel alternatives in crowded travel corridors to accommodate future population increases. But, as a congressional hearing in New York City on January 27 made clear, federal efforts should be refocused on places where passenger rail investment is economically justified and where there exists a potential of sufficient ridership to attract private capital. As Congressmen Mica and Shuster correctly concluded, this means concentrating on the densely populated and heavily traveled Northeast Corridor with its serious air traffic congestion and well-developed urban transit distribution networks in major metropolitan areas.

    A majority of the witnesses testifying at the hearing seemed to agree with the two congressmen. They included such influential advocacy groups as Building America’s Future (Gov. Ed Rendell and Mayor Michael Bloomberg), America 2050 (Petra Todorovich) and U.S. High Speed Rail Association (Thomas Hart).

    Thus, the need to involve the private sector and to focus on the Northeast Corridor as a matter of first priority could well emerge as the core elements of a new congressional posture on high-speed rail. Instead of lavishing money on projects in numerous states in an unrealistic and fruitless attempt to make high-speed rail accessible to 80 percent of Americans, Congress would use targeted financial incentives to attract private investment and encourage private sector involvement in a few corridors where high-speed rail service makes economic and transportation sense. The inducements could include long-term operating concession agreements, loan guarantees, tax credits, availability payments and other creative financing arrangements. Whether additional federal funds to bolster such a policy will be forthcoming in the deficit-conscious 112th Congress, remains to be seen.

    Ken Orski is Editor and Publisher of Innovation NewsBriefs, a Washington-based transportation newsletter in its 22nd year of publication.

  • Why Most Americans are Both Liberal and Conservative

    American politics is consumed by a bitter, at times violent, debate about the overall role of government and specific governmental programs.

    Pundits often frame this divide in terms of geography (red states versus blue states), ethnicity (Hispanics and blacks versus whites), class (rich versus poor), or age and gender. Those factors matter, but seeing polarization only in terms of group versus group misses an important paradox about Americans: Most of us have both deep conservative instincts and liberal instincts.

    This personal inner conflict need not calcify our national divide. Instead, it could form the basis for a new and unifying consensus or civic ethos. To do this, though, our political leaders must build on the quintessentially American politics of today’s Millennials (those born between 1982 and 2003), who prize individual initiative at the local level to achieve national goals.

    Why we look left and right at the same time
    American political opinion looks in two directions – both left and right, or liberal and conservative – at the same time. Social scientists Lloyd A. Free and Hadley Cantril were the first to use survey research to describe and analyze this paradox of public opinion that has always shaped US politics.

    In their book, “The Political Beliefs of Americans” (1967), they maintained that Americans consistently demonstrate a conflict between their general attitudes toward “the proper role and sphere of government,” (which drove the big GOP gains last November) and their attitudes toward specific governmental programs (which helps explain broad American support for “big government” programs like Medicare).

    According to Mr. Free and Mr. Cantril, most Americans have conservative attitudes concerning the size of government, and liberal beliefs in support of programs to protect themselves economically. This leads majorities to favor smaller government, individual initiative, and local control while endorsing major governmental programs ranging from Social Security to student grants and loans.

    Tensions go back to our founding
    This tension has always been a part of American politics. The US Constitution was itself the product of fierce debate in the wake of the failed Articles of Confederation. The ingenious solution the Founders gave us was both a strong central government and equally powerful guarantees of individual liberty embodied in the Bill of Rights. Notably, that solution was largely the product of that era’s young adults, the so-called Republican Generation.

    Still, the Constitution didn’t settle the question of the government’s role in the economy and personal welfare. That wasn’t resolved, at least temporarily, until the Great Depression, when Americans gave their strong support to FDR’s New Deal programs. Again, it was that period’s young adults – the “greatest generation” – that led the new consensus.

    Small government, big programs
    Such consensus, of course, doesn’t erase our conflicting convictions. Even in the depths of the Great Depression, Gallup revealed this conflict between the public’s programmatic liberalism and conservative ideology. On the one hand, large majorities believed that the government should provide free medical care to the poor (76 percent), extend long-term, low-interest loans to farmers (73 percent), and implement the newly created Social Security program (64 percent). By contrast, only a minority wanted the government to take over railroads (29 percent) and banks (42 percent), or limit private fortunes (42 percent).

    In 1964, as President Johnson was announcing his Great Society initiatives, Free and Cantril, using the results of commissioned Gallup polls, determined that within the electorate, ideological conservatives outnumbered liberals by more than 3 to 1 (50 percent to 16 percent). But in those very same surveys, support for liberal government programs exceeded conservative opposition by a ratio of 4.6 to 1 (65 percent to 14 percent).

    Using data from four of the Political Values and Core Attitudes surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center over the past two decades, we confirmed their research. Across four Pew surveys, from 1987 to 2009, ideological conservatives outnumbered liberals by a ratio of 3.5 to 1, but liberal supporters of specific programs outnumbered conservative opponents by a 2.2 to 1 margin.

    In every Pew survey, there were always more conservatives than liberals regarding the overall role of government and a greater number of liberals than conservatives in support of programs designed to promote equality and economic well-being. In effect, the United States is neither a center-right nor a center-left nation; it is, and always has been, both at the same time.

    Not surprisingly, voters who identify as Republicans have tended toward the conservative side of these two tendencies. And Democratic identifiers have leaned toward the liberal side. Although the gap between the identifiers of the two parties has widened recently, during most of the time since Free and Cantril first published their findings, the greatest number of both Democratic and Republican identifiers, as well as independents, has been ideologically conservative and programmatically liberal.

    Moderates driven out
    Today, driven by more liberal attitudes among the Democrats’ young Millennial Generation and minority supporters, and the more conservative beliefs of the Republicans’ older, white base, the leadership of the two parties is more polarized than at any time since the Great Depression.

    For the first time ever, among Democrats in the House of Representatives, the liberal Congressional Progressive Caucus contains more members than the moderate New Democrats and conservative Blue Dogs combined.

    Across the aisle, few congressional Republicans are willing to call themselves moderates, and liberals, once a meaningful bloc in the GOP, have entirely disappeared.

    Despite these divisions, the leaders of each party must find a way to work together to synthesize both strands of America’s political DNA – a belief in the importance of a strong national community and equality of opportunity as well as a strong desire to limit government’s encroachment on individual liberty – into a new civic ethos that is broadly acceptable to most Americans.

    Millennials can foster a new consensus
    The belief of America’s youngest adult generation, Millennials, in the efficacy of individual initiative at the local level to achieve national goals provides a basis for just such a solution. To once again bind the wounds of internal discord, our political leaders should adopt this approach and successfully appeal to the ideological conservatism and programmatic liberalism of the American people.

    This piece originally appeared at the Christian Science Monitor.

    Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais are fellows of the New Democrat Network and the New Policy Institute and co-authors of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics (Rutgers University Press: 2008), named one of the 10 favorite books by the New York Times in 2008.

    Photo by Zach Stern

  • Labor’s End?

    Remember cigar-smoking union leaders, those portly white guys who sat around the pool at AFL-CIO conventions in Miami Beach?

    We called them the “old guard” and blamed them for allowing what looked at the time to be a very foreboding decline in union density, power and influence.

    When I started in the Labor Movement in the 1980s, the struggle to replace that generation with smart, progressive and militant leadership was well underway.

    Now many national unions and locals around the country are led and staffed by a new breed, schooled in strategic thinking and coalition-building, and committed to organizing members for action and recruiting workers into the ranks.

    The result:

    The plunge in the number and percentage of union members continues without a blip.

    The latest stats show 14.7 million union members in America; that’s 11.9 percent of the “wage and salary” workforce, a drop of almost a half a percent in one year and more than eight percent since 1983, when the rate was already tumbling.

    I’m not accusing my friends and colleagues of incompetence, lack of commitment or anything of the kind.  In fact, many have been – and are – involved in heroic struggles to reinvigorate and rebuild the movement.

    But the labor relations framework in the U.S. – effectively manipulated by a sophisticated union avoidance industry – makes union growth almost impossible.

    For true believers – you know who you are – a fleeting moment of euphoria ended two years ago when labor law reform was buried by a senate filibuster and a white house with other priorities (the president, by the way, made one oblique reference to unions in his speech to congress this week: the UAW’s support for his free trade pact with South Korea).

    Another daunting challenge facing the labor movement is the growing gap between the number of public sector union members (7.6 million) and those union members working in the business economy (7.1 million).

    How do we convince nonunion working class taxpayers to support government employees being scape-goated for their “budget-busting” pension payouts?

    Finally, a couple of interesting numbers on union distribution by states:

    Of the big ones, California has the most members (2.4 million), New York has the highest percentage (26 percent).  But two “outlier states” also share the spotlight:

    Heavily democratic Hawaii (23.5 percent) is no surprise.

    But, ironically, the republican state of Alaska finishes second in union density (24.8 percent).  It’s where big oil pays union wages, enabling our giant state’s ethic of  “up by your bootstraps” individualism.

    This first appeared at laborlou.com

  • Chicago: The Cost of Clout

    The Chicago Tribune has been running a series on the challenges facing the next mayor. One entry was about the Chicago economy. It described the sad reality of how Chicago’s economy is in the tank, and has been underperforming the nation for the last few years. I’ll highlight the part about challenges building an innovation and tech economy in Chicago:

    The region also has lagged in innovation, firm creation and growth in productivity and gross metropolitan product over the past decade, according to economic development consultant Robert Weissbourd, president of RW Ventures LLC. Daley’s two long-held dreams of Chicago emerging as a high-tech center and a global business center remain just out of reach… “We haven’t made the real global jump yet, and we have not made the tech jump either, but we are finally poised,” said Paul O’Connor, who for many years ran World Business Chicago, the city’s economic development affiliate. “We are still a major contender, but, yeah, we can blow it.” Or, as [Chicago Fed Economist William] Testa put it, “Given the poor performance of this decade, we need to rethink the challenges for Chicago.”
    …

    “If I could wave a magic wand, I would get government to start thinking differently about … what are the levers that we need to push, away from the traditional (tax increment finance district) thinking and away from the traditional thinking of, ‘Let’s just get a big company to move here,’ and toward thinking about how to foster innovation and creativity,” Christie Hefner, former chairman and chief executive of Playboy Enterprises Inc., said at a recent economic forum.

    It has been extremely rare to see people with establishment positions ever say a discouraging word about the city. Most honest observers would have to rate Daley highly has a leader, but certainly not perfect. Yet any criticism at all of him (directly or implicitly by that of the city he runs) has been studiously avoided by most. They are terrified of being excommunicated or broken on the wheel if they deviate from the script. To have corporate executives asking tough questions is unusual, and hopefully an example of a forthcoming “Great Thaw” we need to have here in the wake of Daley’s retirement.

    Chicago’s inability to build an innovation/tech economy is pretty remarkable if you think about it. Here’s third largest city in the country, one with enormous human capital, tremendous wealth, incredible academic institutions, and above all an ability to execute that far outclasses virtually any city I know. How is it then that Chicago has been unable to execute on this?

    Believe it or not, a lot of it goes back to that bane of Chicago politics: Clout. People in Chicago tend to write off clout and political corruption in Chicago with a shrug, as a unique or even amusing local affectation, or just part of the character of purely political life of the city, but one that doesn’t fundamentally change its status as the “City That Works.” But nothing could be further from the truth. Chicago’s culture of clout is a key, perhaps the key, factor holding the city back economically.

    Chicago’s Ambition: Clout

    In Paul Graham’s essay Cities and Ambition, he writes about the subtle messages cities send about what you should try to achieve, and how that shapes their fortunes:

    “Great cities attract ambitious people. You can sense it when you walk around one. In a hundred subtle ways, the city sends you a message: you could do more; you should try harder. The surprising thing is how different these messages can be. New York tells you, above all: you should make more money. There are other messages too, of course. You should be hipper. You should be better looking. But the clearest message is that you should be richer.

    What I like about Boston (or rather Cambridge) is that the message there is: you should be smarter. You really should get around to reading all those books you’ve been meaning to. When you ask what message a city sends, you sometimes get surprising answers. As much as they respect brains in Silicon Valley, the message the Valley sends is: you should be more powerful.
    …
    How much does it matter what message a city sends? Empirically, the answer seems to be: a lot. You might think that if you had enough strength of mind to do great things, you’d be able to transcend your environment. Where you live should make at most a couple percent difference. But if you look at the historical evidence, it seems to matter more than that.

    Chicago’s ambition, the message it sends is: “You should have more clout.” Does that matter? You bet it does.

    What Is Clout?

    Clout is a term of art in Chicago that normally refers to the ability to use connections to obtain jobs, contracts, subsidies or other favors from government. But more broadly, we can think of clout as the ability to influence organizational action within the context of a particular power structure.

    But if that’s the definition, isn’t saying you should have clout the same thing as saying you should have power like Graham said of Silicon Valley? No. Having power, like that held by Mark Zuckerberg or Larry Page and Sergey Brin, is about being autocephalous. It’s about have an independent base of authority or ability to act others are forced to respect. Clout, by contrast is all about petty privileges. Clout can be given, but it can also be taken away. That’s what makes it so corrupting. Tellingly, no one ever talks about Mayor Daley as having clout. That’s because he has real power instead. Having power is like being a king or a duke or a baron. Clout is all about being a courtier.

    To see this in action, just contrast Jesse Jackson with Al Sharpton. Both are prominent national civil rights leaders and black ministers. But Jackson rarely goes hard after anyone in Chicago, at least not anymore. Jackson has clout. One son is a congressman. Another somehow managed to acquire ownership of a lucrative beer distributorship. Jackson bought into the system in Chicago.

    By contrast, Sharpton wants to be a power player in New York, to be someone to whom even a would-be mayor has to come visit and, as they say, kiss the ring. He’s not interested in being bought off. Sure, he’ll make alliances. But he’ll never give up his independent base of power that makes him someone to be reckoned with. That’s the difference between power and clout.

    The Chicago Nexus

    John Kass likes to talk about clout in terms of the “the Combine,” or the bi-partisan system in Illinois in which the Democrats and Republicans have often proven less rivals than partners in crime, sometimes literally. But I prefer to think of “the Nexus” – a unitary social structure that pretty much everyone who’s anyone in Chicago is part of, one that goes far beyond the world of politics.

    Ramsin Canon had a good illustration of the Nexus in a piece he wrote over at Gapers Block:

    With big city economies cratering all around him, the Mayor was able to raise in the neighborhood of $70 million dollars to fund the Olympic Bid. At the same time he was able to get everybody that mattered–everybody–on board behind the push for the Olympics. Nobody, from the largest, most conservative institutions to the most active progressive advocacy group, was willing to step out against him on that issue.
    …
    The list of big donors to the Chicago 2016 bid committee is a comprehensive list of powerful Chicago institutions. I mean, it’s exhaustive. Economy be damned, when the Mayor called, they listened. Why? What did those conversations sound like? And do we believe that the Mayor is so powerful–or that their relationship with him is so close–that they must obey him? Or–more likely–is it a mutual back-scratching club with an incentive to protect the status quo? Chicago’s political infrastructure isn’t about the Democratic Party or “the Machine” or special interest groups or labor unions. Those are elements of varying importance. It’s real power lives in the networks that tie that list together.

    …
    Replace the man on the Fifth Floor–Bureaucracy Man, the superhero who keeps our alleys clear–and will these networks evaporate? Will they just disappear? How long would it take them to reorganize around the new personalities that moved in there?

    All cities have elite networks, but I have never seen a city that has a unitary power nexus to the extent Chicago does. I believe the Nexus resulted from the culture of clout combined with the fact that, with the exception of the interregnum between Daley pere and fils, power has been centralized on the 5th floor of city hall for decades. The Nexus may have come into being around the mayor, but now it has become a feature of civic life, one that practically longs for what Greg Hinz has labeled a “Big Daddy” style leader to sustain the system.

    Clout’s Effect on the Culture of Chicago

    The emergence of the Nexus is one of the key cultural impacts of clout in Chicago. If clout is only effective within a given power structure, then clearly the clouted want to see their power structure expand. The ultimate dream of the clout seeker is a centralized unitary state like Louis XIV’s France. In Chicago, we’ve come amazingly close to achieving it. It’s not that there’s no conflict, but it is all of the palace intrigue variety, not true conflicts between rival power centers. Without centralized political power and a tradition of clout, the Nexus would never have come into being.

    There are many other cultural impacts as well. As Douglas and Wildavsky note in Risk and Culture, “An individual who passes his life exclusively in one or another such social environment internalizes its values and bears its marks on his personality.”

    People are bought into and defend the system. They mapped these social environments along the axes of “grid” and “group” – the degree of hierarchy in the system and the degree of group cohesion. The Chicago Nexus is a high-grid, high-group structure, or collective hierarchy, with centralized decision making and a high cost of defection. Even groups that in other cities tend to be more oppositional to government will say something like, “Decisions get made in the mayor’s office here, so we have to play that game” and buy into the system. I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve heard, “That’s just how it works here.” Of course, this means the basis of their own ability to make things happen then becomes influence – clout – within the Nexus. Thus they defend the system, because if it went away, so would their ability to make things happen because they’ve cultivated no alternative vectors for action. Also, the Council Wars period of the 1980’s still looms large in many leaders’ minds. Chicago remains heavily segregated and racially balkanized, as the recent quest for a single black mayoral candidate illustrates. There’s a lot of worry about what might happen if the current system breaks down.

    Conservatism and favoring of the establishment. Following on from that, the system fosters a sort of generalized conservatism, one dominated by a desire for institutional stability. It takes a heavy hitter to get the mayor’s attention or even access to the mayor, which reinforces establishment control, an inherently conservative model. This conservatism is even visible the realm of public design, as I’ve noted in discussion the retro-nostalgia design of the city’s streetlights and other streetscape elements. The evidence of clout-fed conservatism is literally graven in into the very streets of the city.

    Parochialism. Though fancying itself a cosmopolitan burg, I don’t see that Chicago is that much less parochial than most other Midwest cities. You see this in a thousand little ways. For example, in the way beloved long time personalities dominate the local airwaves. As the New York Times noted about turmoil at long time ratings leader WGN-AM, “Chicago tends to be unforgiving to newcomers. And with WGN pulling in the second- most radio revenue in the market behind WBBM, its moves are fraught with risk. ‘It was always difficult to bring someone in from out of town,’ said Bob Sirott, a longtime Chicago broadcaster.” (Longevity seems particularly prized here generally, as unless you are fortunately enough to be born to the right family or in the right parish, it takes time to accumulate clout). Or in the focus on local and hyper-local news in the local internet journalism community.

    Fear. As a high-group social structure, people are terrified of being kicked out of the club. Hence the unwillingness to cross the party line on almost any issue. As Tocqueville put it: “That which most vividly stirs the human heart is not the quiet possession of something precious, but rather the imperfectly satisfied desire to have it and the continual fear of losing it again.” People are even afraid of collateral damage if others near them cross the line. As Mike Doyle said, “In systems like Chicago’s, people don’t just refrain from rocking the boat, they do their best to keep anyone else from rocking it either.”

    Total Rejection of the Other. Anyone who exists outside the structure is a potential threat. Hence they are either co-opted or marginalized. The best illustration of this is the very title of that wonderful book on Chicago politics, We Don’t Want Nobody Nobody Sent. Or as Steve Rhodes said to me:

    One of the bartenders at the Beachwood says it took her awhile to figure this city out. In other cities you apply for a job with a resume, talk about your experience, etc. Here they just want to know who you know, who sent you – even at the bartender level….I’m not naive enough to believe this doesn’t happen elsewhere, but nowhere near as it does here, where it’s in the DNA. …Here, merit counts for next to nothing…In New York, everyone wants to know: “What do you do?” In Chicago, everyone wants to know: “Who do you know?”

    Why Clout Is Toxic to the Innovation Economy

    When you think about these cultural impacts of clout on Chicago, it becomes obvious why the city has failed to build an innovation economy. Innovation is fundamentally about new ideas, new ways of doing things, new players in the game, those from the outside, about merit, about dynamism. Clout is about what happened yesterday, the fruits of long years of efforts, and the same old – sometimes really old – players, about insiders, about connections, about stasis. As Jane Jacobs noted, “Economic development, no matter when or where it occurs, is profoundly subversive of the status quo.” Innovation driven economic development is fundamentally about disrupting the status quo. Clout is all about preserving it. Innovation welcomes the outsider, the clout-fueled Nexus abhors the Other. Innovation and clout are enemies.

    Think about the innovation hubs in America. They are all places that welcome the new. Not that it’s easy to make it in them. In fact, these place are often brutally competitive. And of course they have elite networks where the scions of the rich and powerful have a leg up and such. But the new is an important part of what makes them tick. In Silicon Valley, they are always looking for the tomorrow’s HP, Apple, Cisco, Google, Facebook, or Twitter, not just celebrating the past. They know that success today is ephemeral and, as Andy Grove put it, “only the paranoid survive.” DC loves its establishment, but the very nature of the place assures there will always be new players in the game. President Obama comes out of nowhere to gain the White House. But two years later it is the upstart Tea Party’s turn. Possibly because of their entertainment industry clusters, NYC and LA are always on the lookout for the fresh face and the next big thing.

    But Chicago? What do you think is going to happen when an ambitious 20-something with a great idea for a new business but no clout shows up in Chicago trying to make it happen and knocks on the door?

    I may not be 20 anymore, but at the risk of making this post sound like merely a bit of personal pique, I’ll share a true personal story to illustrate one example of how this plays out in real life in Chicago. In 2009 I received an award from the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce for innovative thinking on public transit, winning first prize in a global competition they ran to solicit ideas for boosting public transit ridership in Chicago.

    I was thinking at the time that I might want to do something more entrepreneurial. I knew that the Chamber ran a sister organization called the Chicagoland Entrepreneurship Center chartered with boosting startups in Chicago. In the wake of my award I decided to check them out and see how they might be able to help me.

    There was just one problem: they wouldn’t return my phone calls. I made many attempts to get in touch with them by phone and email, and couldn’t even get them to give me a “No Thanks” or pawn me off on a peon. Now I’m a guy who a) had significant business experience, who b) built up one of America’s top urbanist sites from scratch, an inherently entrepreneurial act, and a successful one, if you think about it, and c) just got an award for innovation from the Chamber itself. Yet they wouldn’t even give me the time of day.

    What’s more, the Chamber mothership never showed any interest in engaging with me post-competition either. It was clearly just a PR exercise for them. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m delighted to report it was a very successful one. I got my picture on the front page of the Chicago Tribune above the fold. It exceeded my wildest expectations. I think the folks at the Chamber are nice people and I was extremely pleased with how it went. But clearly from their perspective, that’s where it ended. Actually uncovering innovators or something was not part of the agenda.

    From standpoint of the the Chicago system, this experience actually makes perfect sense, as I don’t have clout, nor can I bestow it on anyone. So why burn cycles on me?

    If you think about my profile and the treatment I got, can you imagine what a 23 year old armed with nothing but a crazy idea would get? A lot of ink has been dedicated to talking about how far Chicago and Illinois have come since they days when Mark Andreesen was actively harassed while trying to commercialize his web browser, then run out of town on a rail. But there is no doubt in my mind that if the next the next Andreesen showed up today, he’d get the exact same treatment. (I’m not familiar enough with Andrew Mason’s history to know how he was treated pre-Groupon, and pre-his association with the likes of big money Eric Lefkofsky. It would make an interesting case study to look at the history there – though he is a possible exception. I don’t know. In any case, his major local profile came after Groupon was already a huge success).

    This is what clout in Chicago hath wrought. The culture of the establishment Chicago is simply incompatible with an innovation economy. It’s not just about money or resources. It’s about respect. It’s about what this town respects, and more importantly what it doesn’t. It’s about what Chicago whispers to you about what you should aspire to achieve, what success means in this city, and the subtle – and not so subtle – messages about how you get ahead here.

    Until you’ve already made your millions or somehow wormed your way into connections or up through the hierarchy, establishment Chicago has no use for you in its economic plans, no matter what talent, ideas, or ambitions you might harbor. (Ironically, the biggest exception is Daley himself, who was famous for seeking out and rapidly promoting young talent like Ron Huberman and Richard Rodriguez. That’s another example of how he is head and shoulders above your average leader).

    By contrast, the local entrepreneurial tech community gets it, is energized, knows where the city is and where it needs to be, and is working hard to make progress with a sense of legitimate optimism backed up by recent good news. Grass roots and “by tech for tech” institutions ranging from Technori, to the Chicago Lean Startup Circle, to the folks at Groupon – which is a huge, inspirational success story, with people who get it and are committed to trying to build up Chicago’s tech scene – are hugely supportive of anyone trying to make a go at it no matter what stage they are in, and providing legitimately useful info and help along the way. Every single person in this group I’ve talked to has been more that willing to do anything to try to help me out, sometimes even more than I’d hoped or asked for – 100% of them. (Yes, this does mean I am starting an internet business myself – watch this space).

    I’ve long said Chicago isn’t going to be the next Silicon Valley and should seek only to get its “fair share” of tech. Having said that, as the third largest city in America, a fair share is still pretty big. If Chicago’s going to make it, this collaborative effort by the local tech community is what is going to get it there – not the Nexus.

    The Way Forward

    Pretty much every report out of officialdom – from Gov. Quinn’s Illinois Economic Recovery Commission Report to CMAP’s Go To 2040 Plan – suggests the public and quasi-public sectors need to do more to boost innovation. But what’s really needed is cultural change in the establishment. Until that happens, I’d suggest that what’s really needed is to take a page from the Getting Real playbook and for them to do less.

    Think about it. If Joe Investor shoots you down, you know the odds were probably long in the first place. While you might not come away feeling good about him, you probably don’t feel any worse about Chicago. But if you approach an official or quasi-official organization chartered with promoting “innovation”, “entrepreneurship”, “clusters”, “technology” or whatever in Chicago and they shoot you down, it’s not just them but your city you feel has rejected you. It’s one thing to generate a negative interaction with a private entity, but with an official entities that hurts the very thing they’re trying to promote. If an official or quasi-official organization can’t say Yes, or at least make sure that well over 50% of the people it says No to feel good about the experience, it should be shut down, because it’s doing more harm than good.

    What’s more, these organizations and leaders glom on to these hot phrases du jour and, as someone put it, “suck the oxygen out of the room.” They hog the microphone and the real stories and the real discussion that need to happen out there don’t get told in the press because big names are the default easy answer for reporters. Just look at the number of big titled civic folks and such quoted in the Tribune piece, for example. Startup blog Technori has already told me more in two months about things that matter in tech than the Tribune and the Sun-Times combined did all last year. As Mike Madison said of Pittsburgh:

    Tech-based economic development is not something that can be conjured in  meetings of mayors and CEOs.   That’s top-down, old-school, clear-the-skies, ACCD thinking.  In fact, I would guess that the more that the Downtown Duquesne Club crew gets in the middle of this process, the more the real entrepreneurs and innovators and risk-capital investors get turned off.

    Or as Paul O’Connor put it in that Tribune piece I led off with:

    “What we have now, to some extent, is a stodgy Midwest establishment, and underneath them are the kids who moved here, some of them in their 30s now,” he said. “They get it; they know how to do it. … We either give them permission and invite them to the table, which the next mayor should do and which Mayor Daley has begun to do a little bit lately, or we let them do it themselves.”

    Blowing Up the Culture of Clout

    Clout is so persistent in Chicago not just because of the people who personally benefit from it, but because there’s little perception of the ways the culture of clout affects Chicago outside the political realm. Indeed, to the extent people regard the Chicago Way at all, it’s often positively, because it enabled the city to “get things done.” It’s the same thing that causes Thomas Friedman to have his schoolgirl crush on China.

    But unfortunately for Chicago (and likely China too down the road) it doesn’t just matter if you can get things done, it matters what it is you do. And it also matters how you do it and who is involved. Until people understand the linkage between clout and other parts of the city like its economic under-performance, and care enough to change it, the non-political members of the Chicago Nexus are not going to feel the need to change the way things are done here. It’s not that these folks are corrupt by any means. Far from it. I believe they are completely sincere in their desire to better the city. But they don’t perceive the issue at the level that will collectively move them to action, or else feel the status quo is better for their institutional interests.

    Changing the culture is mission critical to Chicago realizing its ambitions as a global city and a center of the innovation economy, and a lot of other things too. The notion that you can have a centralized, top-down, clout driven Nexus infusing your civic culture but that somehow you’ll have an innovation driven economic culture – that’s just impossible. The attempt to fix and transform Chicago’s economy with a bunch of behind the scenes maneuvering and initiatives by a few heavy hitters has failed. We need to try a different way. That doesn’t mean Chicago has to become paralyzed with dysfunction of in-fighting or civic anarchy. But there need to be multiple power centers and a receptivity to everything innovation is all about. And it will be a bit messier. I think that’s a good thing. There’s no doubt Chicago is a great city with incredible assets and capabilities. There’s no reason it can’t join the ranks of the innovation elite – if it’s willing to start jettisoning the culture of clout the so hobbles its ambitions and embracing a more dynamic future for the city. What will it be, Chicago?

    Aaron M. Renn is an independent writer on urban affairs based in the Midwest. His writings appear at The Urbanophile, where this piece originally appeared.

    Photo by Bryce Edwards

  • Middle America: Problems and Prospects

    Undoubtedly, America is a middle class nation. But are there problems in the middle? It would certainly seem so: reduced employment, income and wealth (more worryingly, reduced employment, income- and wealth-building opportunities); reduced prospects for generational advancement (kids are supposed to do better than their parents, right?); general feelings of stagnation, “on the wrong track,” pessimism, frustration and anger.

    Are these cyclical or structural changes? What are the causes, and what are the cures?

    Many analyses say the cause is the breakdown of family structure and all that engenders; others say it’s that we can’t seem to get education right. But if it’s family and/or schools, trends are not favorable. On the other hand, maybe these problems are overblown. Let’s have a look.

    The Upward Mobility Gap
    According to the Brookings Institution, more than two-thirds of children born into low-income households grow up to earn a below-average income, and only 6% ever make it into the top one-fifth of income earners. Why is there an upward mobility gap in America, land of opportunity? The usually cited culprits are globalization, the decline of public schools, and the decline of intermarriage between people of different classes.

    As a group, adults with college degrees have an unemployment rate of 5%, steady or rising incomes, relatively stable families (their divorce rate declined over the last 10 years) and few children out of wedlock. Adults without a high school education, by contrast, face an unemployment rate over 15%, declining incomes, a higher divorce rate, and have lots of kids out of wedlock. (Among black women who didn’t finish high school, 96% of childbirths are outside marriage; among white women who didn’t finish high school, 43%).

    Can anything improve this troubling picture? It is now acknowledged across the political spectrum that people who do just three things – complete high school, work at any job, and not have children out of wedlock – will have a pretty good chance of making it into the middle class. Not easy, but simple. How do we help young people understand that?

    Bad Students, Not Bad Schools
    The conventional wisdom to address these issues has been to spend more on public education. That may be the proverbial barking up the wrong tree. According to Robert Weissberg, author of Bad Students, Not Bad Schools (2010), school reform is hopeless.

    His main points:

    • Academic achievement requires intelligence and motivation. School resources, pedagogy and instructional quality are important but secondary. Unfortunately, both liberal and conservative reformers have ignored brains and work ethic and concentrate on secondary factors.
    • “Bad schools” are not created “bad.” Indifferent, anti-intellectual, often violent students make schools bad, and pouring in more resources will fix nothing unless the students themselves change.
    • Academic achievement requires motivation, and today’s educators foolishly believe in making learning fun and “relevant.” This approach is doomed. Learning inescapably involves pain, and without a struggle, personal advancement is impossible. Substituting cheap self-esteem to avoid agony is particularly harmful to the intellectually less able.
    • American educators have long obsessed over closing racial gaps in learning and every attempt, regardless of the billions spent or tactics Yet trying to close these gaps undermines learning for both whites and blacks. The futile effort will only dumb-down education so as to provide the illusion of progress.
    • Recent efforts to uplift the least able students have harmed smart kids. Programs for the intellectually gifted have been decimated under No Child Left Behind. This is the opposite of what occurred in the late 1950s and early 60s when the US responded to Sputnik by concentrating on bright students. What rescues America from self-imposed education collapse is importing smart youngsters plus scientists born overseas. This may not last forever.
    • Reformers often insist that education should be treated as a business with clear standards and strict accountability to insure progress. Total nonsense. The parallel is inappropriate – you can’t “fire” non-performing students no matter how rotten or disruptive. The business-like infatuation on test scores and accountability almost inevitably subverts quality education, promotes cheating and steers less capable students away from more practical education.
    • School choice – vouchers and charter schools – infatuates “conservative” educators. This approach has seldom succeeded. More important, it falsely assumes that if students and parents were given ample choice, they would crave academic excellence. More likely, they prefer sports and country club-like facilities, not tough academics.
    • Education spending has sky-rocketed with little to show for these billions. Reformers misunderstand what today’s fixes are about. Schooling has become the reincarnation of the 1960s Great Society, a cornucopia of social welfare jobs and contracts. It is less about boosting learning than securing the social peace by preventing urban unrest.

    When Marriage Disappears
    Among the affluent, marriage is stable and may even be getting stronger. Among the poor, marriage continues to be fragile and weak. But the most consequential marriage trend of our time concerns the broad center of our society, where marriage, that iconic middle-class institution, is foundering. Marriage is in trouble in Middle America.

    So finds Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, in his latest report. The numbers are clear; over the last 30 years:

    • Among “Middle Americans” (the 58% of moderately educated Americans who have a high school degree), the proportion of children born outside of marriage skyrocketed from 13% to 44% while the portion of adults in an intact first marriage dropped from 73% to 45%.
    • Among financially well-educated Americans (the 30% who have a college degree or higher), the proportion of children born outside of marriage climbed only slightly from 2% to 6%, the divorce rate dropped from 15% to 11%, and intact first marriages dropped from 73% to 56%.

    In sum, due to a shift in attitudes, values and behavior, the relationships of Middle Americans increasingly resemble those of the poor, while marriages among upscale Americans are getting better in many respects. For reasons both cultural and economic, there is a growing disengagement from societal institutions among large portions of the middle class.

    The retreat from marriage in Middle America cuts deeply into the nation’s hopes and dreams, writes Wilcox. He believes that if marriage is increasingly unachievable for our moderately educated citizens, then it is likely that we will witness the emergence of a diminished society. Economic mobility will be out of reach, their children’s life chances will diminish, and large numbers of young men will live apart from the civilizing power of married life.

    Wilcox says it is not too far-fetched to imagine that the United States could be heading toward a 21st century version of a traditional Latin American model of family life, where only a small oligarchy enjoys a stable married and family life – and the economic and social fruits that flow from strong marriages. In this model, the middle and lower-middle classes would find it difficult to achieve the same goals for their families and would be bedeviled by family discord and economic insecurity.

    Millennials and Hope
    Another view is offered by Joseph Lawler, managing editor of The American Spectator, who writes in the current issue that the idea that the middle class is in a “slow-burning crisis” is badly overstated. Middle-class college graduates must be doing fine, he surmises, if, as a recent New York Times article on the subject relates, they are turning down starting salaries of $40,000!

    The economic downturn has certainly caused widespread hardship, Lawler writes, but it would be a serious mistake to attribute the country’s economic woes to a prolonged erosion of middle-class opportunity. The fact that the American economy still provides opportunity on a vast scale should be evident from what Americans themselves are saying about their prospects. In early 2009, at the depths of the recession, the Economic Mobility Project, an initiative funded by Pew Charitable Trusts, commissioned a survey of Americans’ economic sentiments. The poll showed that 58% of people aged 18-29 thought that they would have an easier time moving up the economic ladder than their parents did. Seventy-two percent of those polled thought that their economic circumstances would be much or somewhat better in 10 years. Seventy-nine percent expressed confidence in the possibility that people could improve their economic standing even during the recession, and among youth the number rose to 88%.

    They could be all wrong, but optimism in the face of uncertainty should itself be considered a strength of American society!

    This clear expression of optimism among young workers conflicts with the grim trends echoed endlessly throughout political commentary, notes Lawler. The reason the polls don’t reflect such sentiments is that those malign developments are overblown, and are to a significant degree artifacts of the way statistics on income and inequality are kept.

    For instance, economic mobility – the ease with which young workers move up the economic ladder – is as healthy as the polls would suggest. Middle- and lower-class wages have not progressed as they did a couple of generations ago, but still about 65% of children go on to out-earn their parents, including 80% of those in the lowest income quintile, according to a study by Julia Isaacs of the Brookings Institution.

    It is hard to reconcile the fact that young generations are still advancing economically with the general phenomenon of stagnating wages until one factor is taken into account: immigration. Because immigrants earn less on average than others, including them in the sample makes it appear as though mobility is not as prevalent as it really is. And of course for many of them, even in lower income, they are doing far better than their own parents back home.

    Minnesota Federal Reserve economist Terry Fitzgerald, in a contrarian 2008 paper, separated some of the frequently repeated misleading facts from the reality that the middle class has made steady gains. A key finding was that while households in the middle of the distribution have fallen behind top-earning households since the 1970s, in fact almost all households have enjoyed substantial income gains since then.

    Middle America is troubled, economically and socially, and trends are not favorable. But the middle class is our strength, our hope. So what can we do to shore up the middle?

    We know that the answer is fostering human capital, and we have always thought the way to do this was through education. But we are finding that educational success is correlated with and dependent upon strong family structure. Which comes first, educational achievement or strong family structure? Now we know: strong family structure.

    What public policies to pursue to encourage and enhance stronger families? Answer: fewer of them.

    The usual policy prescriptions — intervention and redistribution — have not worked, will not work, cannot work. We actually need less public policy, less intervention, less redistribution. If stronger families are best, also the most natural, then we should leave resources to families.

    Dr. Roger Selbert is a trend analyst, researcher, writer and speaker. Growth Strategies is his newsletter on economic, social and demographic trends. Roger is economic analyst, North American representative and Principal for the US Consumer Demand Index, a monthly survey of American households’ buying intentions.

    Photo by: scarlatti2004

  • The Next Urban Challenge — And Opportunity

    In the next two years, America’s large cities will face the greatest existential crisis in a generation. Municipal bonds are in the tank, having just suffered the worst quarterly performance in more than 16 years, a sign of flagging interest in urban debt.

    Things may get worse. The website Business Insider calculates that as many as 16 major cities — including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco — could face bankruptcy in the next year without major revenue increases or drastic budget cuts. JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon notes that there have already been six municipal bankruptcies and predicts that we “will see more.”

    Big cities face particularly steep challenges. Many, notes the Manhattan Institute’s Steve Malanga, have extraordinarily generous compensation systems for their public employees. New York City, for example, owes nearly $65 billion in municipal debt, as well as a remarkable $122 billion for unfunded pension obligations.  President Barack Obama’s hometown of Chicago has it even worse: Its total public pension liability adds up to roughly $42,000 per household.

    This all should give some pause to the relentless hoopla about the country’s supposed “urban renaissance.” The roots of the current economic crisis lie deep in urban economies, where employment growth that has lagged even in good times.  During the last economic expansion, urban job growth was roughly one-sixth that of suburbs and one-third that of smaller communities.

    Population flows are also less favorable than commonly perceived.  Even since the onset of the Great Recession, the vast majority of urban regions have seen population continue to grow more robustly in the suburbs than in the urban core. Similarly, the largest increases in the much-coveted educated population continue to be in smaller, less dense urban areas such as Raleigh-Durham, Austin and Nashville and away from the largest, densest regions such as New York or Los Angeles.

    True, many cities now boast more residential complexes, often built from abandoned office and industrial space, but there are few new office towers outside the public sector. Stadiums, convention centers, luxury hotels and other ephemera may gain public notoriety, but they have done little to boost the private sector economic base  as can be seen in the lack of growth in places like downtown Cleveland, Detroit and Baltimore. In contrast, job growth has flourished  in low-density regions in suburban rings, particularly in fast-growing metropolitan regions of the South , particularly in Texas and Intermountain West locales such as Salt Lake City.

    Initially, the Great Recession was widely held to have reversed this pattern. As private sector growth retrenched, companies pulled out of newer offices in suburbia, sometimes consolidating in downtown office. The Bush-Obama stimulus also bailed out the two sectors — finance and government — that drive employment in most inner cities. Meanwhile, suburbs, with their collections of small companies that have little political heft and depend more on home construction, suffered greater drops in occupancies.

    This urban tilt was, until recently, reinforced by political trends. After the 2008 election urban interests had secured a degree of political power unprecedented in recent history. The White House was occupied by a confirmed urbanite who found suburbs “boring” and had little connection with small town residents. The president stocked his EPA, Housing, Transportation and Education bureaucracies with pro-urban advocates who shared his vision to re-densify a country that has been steadily dispersing for half a century.

    At the start of the Obama presidency virtually every critical committee post in the House was controlled by urban Democrats led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi — such old lions as Henry Waxman, Barney Frank and Charles Rangel. In concert with an urban-focused White House, they constructed a stimulus tilted toward key urban interests: public employees, large universities, mass transit and high-speed rail systems.

    Now the cities’ political ascendency has come to an end. Suburban and small town voters, who represented a large majority of the electorate, shifted heavily the November toward the GOP. Unlike the city-focused old Congress, the new GOP dominated House’s primary loyalty is to the metropolitan periphery as well as smaller cities and towns.

    This shift will affect big cities across the country. Urban land speculators counting on a national  high-speed rail speed  and expanded rail transit networks to boost central cores now face a Congress more concerned with roads than ultra-expensive new trains. You can also forget the hundreds of millions ascribed for “smart growth” plans, which, in essence, seek to direct development and housing towards high-density urban areas.

    Even more serious for cities will be the fiscal fallout from the new order in Washington. Pushed by the Tea Party base, the GOP-led Congress will unlikely provide bailouts to fiscally challenged states and cities. This will hit those big cities — New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chicago, –  located in heavily indebted states — New York, California and, arguably the worst of the pack, Illinois — the hardest.

    There is widespread concern, bordering on panic, about how potential cutbacks in state spending could further savage already strapped city budgets. In California, for example, Governor Jerry Brown’s proposed scaling back of state redevelopment funds was described in the Los Angeles Downtown News as a “budget bomb” for the city’s widely hyped but already tottering downtown renaissance.

    Yet these challenges also present an opportunity for cities. As one prominent urban booster, Brookings’ Chris Leinberger, has pointed out in a recent radio interview (KPCC-FM-NPR), many of the nation’s cities no longer require the assistance deemed necessary back in the ’60s and ’70s. As they have developed somewhat stronger downtown cores, lowered crime rates and reduced “white flight,” the stronger urban cores are better positioned now, though perhaps less so than the boosters believe,  to succeed on a market-oriented basis.

    Even setbacks, like the largely failed condo boom, can turn into an advantage. No longer commanding high prices from the never-quite-materialized hordes of affluent “empty nesters,” the new units could provide a stock of lower-cost housing for the younger, educated and childless demographic attracted to urban core. Although most millennials consider suburbs their ultimate destination, a sizable number, roughly one in five, rank an urban center as their “ideal” location.

    Cities need to break their reliance on outside help from a country that is, for the most part, not dense or urban. Future urban progress cannot rely on Washington’s largesse or diktats. Instead cities need to focus on how to create a greater competitive advantage in the demographic and employment marketplace. Rather than obsessing over government-driven employment, they have to create conditions that will lead to job creation in the private sector, particularly from the oft-neglected and usually politically impotent small business sector.  These include such things as relaxing some regulations, including taxes on home-based businesses, incubator centers and more consistent standards on building construction.

    City governments will need to shift their priorities away from ephemera and concentrate on such basics as improving schools, promoting entrepreneurial growth and nurturing sustainable middle class neighborhoods. The current shift in political power away from cities may be painful at first, but it could prove the elixir that will turn the urban renaissance fantasy into something closer to reality.

    This piece originally appeared in Forbes.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University, and an adjunct fellow of the Legatum Institute in London. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in February, 2010.

    Photo by asterix611