New Geography

Blog

  • Beyond the Census: America’s Demographic Advantage

    As the nonstop TV commercials have made clear, the U.S. Census Bureau really hopes you’ve sent back your questionnaire by now. But in reality, we don’t have to wait for the census results to get a basic picture of America’s demographic future. The operative word is “more”: by 2050, about 100 million more people will inhabit this vast country, bringing the total U.S. population to more than 400 million.

    With a fertility rate 50 percent higher than Russia, Germany, or Japan, and well above that of China, Italy, Singapore, South Korea, and virtually all of Eastern Europe, the United States has become an outlier among its traditional competitors, all of whose populations are stagnant and seem destined to eventually decline. Thirty years ago, Russia constituted the core of a vast Soviet empire that was considerably more populous than the United States. Today, Russia’s low birthrate and high mortality rate suggest that its population will drop by 30 percent by 2050, to less than one third that of the United States. Even Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has spoken of “the serious threat of turning into a decaying nation.”

    Perhaps an even more important demographic gap is emerging between the United States and East Asia. Over the past few decades a rapid expansion of their workforce fueled the rise of the East Asian tigers, the great economic success story of our epoch. Yet within the next four decades, a third or more of their populations will be older than 65, compared with only a fifth in America. By 2050, according to the United Nations, roughly 30 percent of China’s population will be more than 60 years old. Lacking a developed social-security system, China’s rapid aging will start cutting deep into the country’s savings and per capita income rates. A slowdown of population growth in poor countries can offer a short-term economic and environmental benefit. But in advanced countries, a rapidly aging or decreasing population does not bode well for societal or economic health.

    Between 2000 and 2050 the U.S. population aged 15 to 64—the key working and school-age group—will grow 42 percent, while the same group will decline by 10 percent in China, nearly 25 percent in Europe, and 44 percent in Japan. Unlike its rivals, America’s economic imperative will lie not in meeting the needs of the aging, but in providing job and income growth for our expanding workforce. What the United States does with its “demographic dividend”—that is, its relatively young working-age population—will depend largely on whether the private sector can generate jobs, an issue that’s particularly critical now, with more than 15 million unemployed.

    Immigrants may be one force that will lead the way: between 1990 and 2005 immigrants started one quarter of all venture-backed public companies. This enterprising spirit is crucial, because U.S. employment has been shifting not to mega corporations but to individuals; between 1980 and 2000, the number of self-employed people expanded tenfold to make up 16 percent of the workforce.

    To create jobs, America needs to pay attention not only to high-tech industries but also the basic ones—construction, manufacturing, agriculture, energy—that will employ our expanding blue-collar workforce. Expanding our basic industries, and focusing on the necessary skills training for those laboring in them, will provide new opportunities for the majority of workers who do not possess college degrees. It also will be critical to addressing the outflow of capital to other countries, and provide the basis for innovations that will create new exports.

    With the mobilization of our entrepreneurs and supportive government policies, the United States should be able to exploit its vibrant demography to assure its preeminence over the next four decades. If we fail to start taking these steps now, our current leaders will have earned the opprobrium that future generations will heap upon them.

    This article originally appeared at the Newsweek.

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

    Photo by Seema K K

  • Telecommute Taxes On The Table

    The Obama Administration has recently been shining a spotlight on the need to eliminate barriers to telework and its growth. Now Congress has legislation before it that would abolish one of telework’s greatest obstacles, the risk of double taxation Americans face if they telecommute across state lines. The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act (H.R. 2600)would remove the double tax risk.

    H.R. 2600 can and should be enacted as a stand-alone measure. However, Washington is also currently developing or considering a variety of other legislative packages, any one of which would be significantly strengthened if the provisions of H.R. 2600 were added to it. These packages include energy/climate legislation (expected to be unveiled later this month), transportation legislation and small business legislation. Each of these packages, we have been told, would double as a jobs bill.

    Telework is a critical component of any plan to create jobs, as well as any plan to improve our energy security, slow climate change, ease traffic congestion, reduce transportation infrastructure costs and boost small businesses. Congress must not miss the important opportunity that H.R. 2600 and these emerging packages provide to get rid of the tax barrier to telework.

    The Obama Administration’s Focus on Removing Obstacles
    On March 31, the White House hosted a first-of-its kind forum on workplace flexibility, bringing together businesses, employees, advocates, labor leaders and experts to talk about the importance of expanding the use of telework and other practices that enable workers to meet the competing demands of job and family. Obama identified workplace flexibility as an issue that affects “the success of our businesses [and] the strength of our economy – whether we’ll create the workplaces and jobs of the future we need to compete in today’s global economy.” Discussing a new effort within the federal government to increase the number of federal teleworkers, the President said,

    “…this isn’t just about providing a better work experience for our employees, it’s about providing better, more efficient service for the American people – even in the face of snowstorms and other crises that keep folks from getting to the office…. It’s about attracting and retaining top talent in the federal workforce and empowering them to do their jobs, and judging their success by the results that they get – not by how many meetings they attend, or how much face-time they log, or how many hours are spent on airplanes. It’s about creating a culture where, as [the Administrator of the General Services Administration] puts it, “Work is what you do, not where you are.”

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is also urging greater reliance on telework. In the National Broadband Plan delivered to Congress on March 16, the FCC reported that “[m]aking telework a more widespread option would potentially open up opportunities for 17.5 million individuals.” For example, the FCC said, telework can spur job growth among Americans living in rural areas, disabled Americans and retirees. To make the telework option more available, the FCC recommended that Congress “consider eliminating tax and regulatory barriers to telework.”

    What regulatory barrier did the FCC target? The “convenience of the employer” rule – the state tax doctrine that subjects interstate telecommuters to the risk of double taxation. Specifically, a state with a “convenience of the employer” rule can tax nonresidents who telecommute part-time to an employer within that state on the wages they earn at home, even though their home states can tax the same income.

    For many people, the threat of owing taxes to two states can put a long-distance job out of reach. By making telework unaffordable for workers, the tax penalty also thwarts businesses and government agencies trying to tap the cost-saving and other economic benefits telework offers.

    The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act would bar states from taxing the income nonresidents earn in their home states, and it would prohibit them from applying a “convenience of the employer” rule. Congress should follow the FCC’s counsel to “consider addressing this double taxation issue that is preventing telework from becoming more widespread.”

    Congressional Opportunities to Remove the Tax Barrier
    As noted above, H.R. 2600 can and should be passed as a stand-alone bill. However, Congress could also seize the opportunity to include the provisions of H.R. 2600 in the energy/climate package, the transportation package, or the small business package that lawmakers are working on, and, in the process, make that package more effective.

    How would telecommuter tax fairness strengthen energy and climate legislation? By substituting the use of broadband for the use of cars and mass transit, telecommuters conserve fuel and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The National Broadband Plan reported that “[e]very additional teleworker reduces annual CO2 emissions by an estimated 2.6-3.6 metric tons per year. [Further, replacing] 10% of business air travel with videoconferencing would reduce carbon emissions by an estimated 36.3 million tons annually.” How can Congress enact an energy bill that does not include such savings?

    The same kind of fairness is a necessary addition to any transportation bill, because broader use of telework can slash transportation costs. By decreasing the demand for roads and rails, telework minimizes wear and tear on existing infrastructure and reduces the need to build more. As a result, telework limits the expense of repairs, maintenance and expansion. The new transportation funding bill should focus more on creating jobs laying broadband conduits and less on jobs laying asphalt. The transportation bill would also benefit from the addition of telecommuter tax fairness, because, by decreasing traffic congestion, telework decreases the hobbling cost of lost productivity.

    Small business legislation? Telework can help small firms hire new people at lower cost: Employers can increase staff without increasing real estate, energy and other overhead expenses. They can also select the most qualified applicants from the broadest geographic area while spending less on recruitment. Telework can increase company efficiency and, as President Obama noted at the workplace flexibility forum, help employers assure continuity of operations when emergencies arise. These are bottom line benefits Washington can offer small businesses without adding to the federal deficit.

    Finally, the success of any legislation designed to jumpstart hiring should include telecommuter tax fairness. It would enable the unemployed — especially those who cannot relocate because their homes are unsalable — to widen the area where they can look for work.

    The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act was introduced by Representatives Jim Himes (D-CT) and Frank Wolf (R-VA). It has bi-partisan support from lawmakers all around the country. Stakeholders endorsing it include the Telework Coalition, the National Taxpayers Union, the American Homeowners Grassroots Alliance and the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, along with the Association for Commuter Transportation and Take Back Your Time. Workplace Flexibility 2010, a public policy initiative at Georgetown University Law Center, has also recommended the elimination of the telecommuter tax penalty.

    Telework is an important part of the solution to the nation’s most urgent problems, including unemployment, foreign oil dependence, climate change, clogged and crumbling travel arteries and the struggle workers face to meet their responsibilities as employees, family members and members of their communities. As federal lawmakers tackle these challenges, they should consider the Administration’s focus on getting rid of regulatory roadblocks to telework. They should heed the FCC’s call to take up the issue of the telework tax penalty, and they should finally enact the Himes-Wolf bill.

    Photo: Representative Jim Himes (D-CT)

    Nicole Belson Goluboff is a lawyer in New York who writes extensively on the legal consequences of telework. She is the author of The Law of Telecommuting (ALI-ABA 2001 with 2004 Supplement), Telecommuting for Lawyers (ABA 1998) and numerous articles on telework. She is also an Advisory Board member of the Telework Coalition.

  • The War For Jobs, Part II: Teamwork On The Frontlines

    So if we are in a new war — this one for business and job growth — what role does local government play?

    It would be a mistake to over-emphasize the role of government, especially at the local level. Despite the claims of politicians from both parties about how many jobs their policies “created,” governments don’t create jobs, at least not in the private sector. Ventura, for example, is estimated to generate about seven to eight billion dollars in annual economic activity. The sales and profitability of thousands of individual businesses are only marginally impacted by what goes on at City Hall, no matter what cheerleaders or critics might claim.

    Still, local government can obviously contribute to a healthier economic climate — and it can certainly get in the way of one.

    There are four broad areas where our impact (good and bad) is greatest: services and infrastructure; taxation; regulation; and encouragement.

    When local Chambers of Commerce advocate for “business-friendly” policies, they usually underplay the most important function of local government: providing vital services (from policing to clean water) and key infrastructure (from roads to sewer pipes). That’s the core function of government, and the more cost-effectively local government does that, the better it is for local business.

    Yet it’s taxation, regulation and “encouragement” that advocates and critics focus on, and argue over endlessly. Important questions. But there is a catalytic spark when encouraging business starts with two simple words: teamwork and focus.

    That’s where we in Ventura are putting our energy to grow business and high value, high wage jobs.

    We’ve put together a team to focus on the business sectors that will drive economic recovery. Alex Schneider directs our successful Ventura Ventures Technology Center. With thirteen start-up high tech businesses, it’s the tangible outcome of our intense focus on new economy business development. On the first of May, Joey Briglio returns to work on green business development. We are transferring Eric Wallner from the Community Services Department to capitalize on his expertise in growing our visitor and creative business sector.

    These new assignments complete the team that also includes Economic Development Manager Sid White and Ventura Business Ombudsman Alex Herrera. White concentrates on Downtown Redevelopment, real estate, Auto Center redevelopment, general business assistance/loan programs, and ongoing work with County Economic Development organizations. Herrera provides personal access and follow-through for local businesses of all sizes. All are assigned to the Community Development Department under Director Jeff Lambert. As City Manager, I’m taking a hands-on approach to working directly with all of them on our new business strategy.

    This is our team. This is our focus.

    Past battles over land use gave Ventura a reputation for being “anti-business.” We can argue ‘til the cows come home whether this was fair or not. But why re-fight those battles? We’re in a new war and our goal is to change our reputation by winning the battles ahead.

    Almost nobody in Ventura wants to pave the city with oversized real estate overdevelopment. Almost everybody wants robust business growth to generate local jobs, enhance the range of private goods and services available to local residents, and to augment revenue to support public services. When 200 Ventura business and community leaders assembled last May for our Economic Summit, what emerged was a community consensus that is as wide as it is deep: focus on growing our own businesses, especially green ones — and increasingly, every business is turning greener.

    In all the buzz about ‘green jobs’ in the energy sector, it’s important to focus on ‘clean tech’ innovation in every field. Our own Patagonia is a blue-chip model for the green future. In recent years, top executives from Walmart, GE and other global giants have visited Patagonia’s downtown Ventura headquarters to study their rigorous focus on reducing waste and shifting to more sustainable supply chains. Is Patagonia a pioneer in renewable forms of energy? No, they make outdoor clothes. Their local workforce exemplifies the opportunity America – and even high-cost coastal California – still has to lead the world in producing globally-competitive quality products and services.

    It was a theme hammered home by Mayor Bill Fulton in his State of the City speech this year:

    “We are fortunate to be located close to two major economic engines… that constantly spin off startup businesses in the high-tech and biotech centers: UC Santa Barbara to our north and Amgen to our south.

    In the past two years, Ventura has made a major effort — unlike any other city in this region — to connect with these institutions, with startup entrepreneurs, and with venture capitalists, to encourage spin-off businesses to locate and grow here in Ventura. And it’s working. Today — for the first time — we are part of the high-tech/biotech business ecosystem.

    “This is a time of great change and uncertainty in our society. Old ways of doing things are falling by the wayside quickly, and new ways are emerging rapidly. Such times can be frightening, but they are also pregnant with great possibilities. We in Ventura are very determined and well positioned to take advantage of those opportunities in order to reinforce Ventura as a great place to live and work.”

    For a city committed to living within our means, we are focusing our team on earning a reputation that Ventura is serious about winning the new war for jobs. We hope to be a pioneer in forging strategy and tactics that will set the standard for other cities in California tackling the urgent task of reinventing the California dream. Reinvigorating the seventh largest economy on the planet will be based on victory in the war on jobs.

    This article is part two of a two-part series by Rick Cole on the war for jobs.

    Flckr photo of Ventura at night by Wink

    Rick Cole is city manager of Ventura, California, and 2009 recipient of the Municipal Management Association of Southern California’s Excellence in Government Award. He can be reached at RCole@ci.ventura.ca.us

  • Business Developer

  • The War For Jobs Trumps The War For Sales Tax Dollars: Part I

    At the beginning of every war, generals always try to fight the last one. Experienced professionals are often the last to realize the times and terrain have changed.

    Since the passage of Proposition 13 — the 1978 ‘taxpayer revolt’ against California property taxes — most California cities have focused on generating sales tax. Property tax, which had been the traditional backbone of local revenue, was slashed by 60%, sparking an intense Darwinian struggle between cities for sales tax market share. During the nineties, the cities along the 101 Corridor in Ventura County competed intensely in the “mall wars” over which cities would get auto dealers and major retailers. The City of Ventura won some and lost some, but during the last consumer boom we were still number two in the County in sales tax per capita, after Thousand Oaks.

    This intercity competition spawned redevelopment megadeals, tax sharing agreements and fawning over chain stores and “big boxes.” “Public-private partnerships” was the name given to deals cut with favored developers and retailers. Some cities won the lottery (Camarillo declared its strawberry fields next to the freeway “blighted” in order to grab redevelopment funding to build its successful outlet center), and some lost (Oxnard’s planned 600,000 square foot “Riverpark Collection” sits vacant and forlorn, and the city’s downtown theater and restaurant development scrapes along with continuing city subsidies).

    With the steep drop in sales tax revenue across California, cities are tempted to try that much harder to grab a bigger slice of a shrinking pie. That’s why a major retailer that pays low wages to mainly part-time employees stills gets more attention and help from cities than a similar size manufacturer or company headquarters paying top salaries. That’s why cities review detailed reports on their top 100 retailers every quarter and don’t even keep lists of their top 100 employers.

    But that is fighting the last war. In the debt-fueled boom that crashed in 2007, 70% of every dollar was going to consumer spending, as consumers tapped their credit cards and home equity loans. To cash in on that spending spree, developers could continue to build new shopping centers and auto malls.

    Now all that has changed. Consumers not only have less income and credit, they are saddled with more debt. Even a recovery in consumer buying power might not translate into needing more stores, as the Internet changes the way people live, shop and entertain themselves. Retail square footage will be slashed as inventory is digitized (think e-books) or as consumers take advantage of an electronic market that offers infinitely more variety than any store (think Zappos Shoes and More.)

    Today’s sharp drop in sales tax is an economic Pearl Harbor. The next war has already begun. Cities will need to fight, not for more stores, but for high wage private sector jobs that can directly compete in the brutal global economy. There are two basic ways to do that: provide value through local advantage, or provide world-class quality.

    Local advantage is not easy. Local retailers and service businesses still compete with corporate giants by adapting to serve a local clientele. Our downtown is primarily made up of these niche companies, serving local customers and clients. But economies of scale continue to favor bigger players.

    World-class quality is even harder. “Buy American” is a nice slogan, but most Americans pay no attention to labels on their underwear or their autos. To sustain high wage jobs, companies located here must overcome the cost disadvantage of operating in coastal California by providing products or services that are worth the premium.

    Patagonia, the outdoor specialty clothing powerhouse, is a high profile success story for competing in the world economy. Although they do nearly $400 million in annual sales, most of the company’s actual work (manufacturing, shipping, back office functions and retailing) takes place elsewhere. But its highest-value headquarters function remains in Ventura, providing 200 high quality, high wage jobs. Their unique passion for a green supply chain landed them on the cover of Fortune as “The Coolest Company on the Planet.”

    Can cities be as effective at growing these kinds of companies as they have been at luring Walmarts and Lexus dealers?

    Ventura is a test case. Our Ventura Ventures Technology Center and quest for Google Fiber are innovative experiments. We are “incubating” thirteen tiny start-ups – and fostering what Lottay CEO Harry Lin, an experienced high tech entrepreneur, calls a “technology ecosystem” of connected players in the new company game.

    If we succeed in our efforts to promote new and expanded “world class quality” companies and the high wage, high value jobs they produce, will that help pay the bills for city services? Isn’t a new Walmart still a better bet?

    The answer is not clear-cut. A new Walmart will provide some tangible real revenue, particularly if it diverts Ventura residents from driving to Oxnard to shop at their Walmart. But if Walmart primarily takes customers away from our two Targets and our other retail outlets, there’s little actual gain in revenue. And the point is, in a shrinking retail market (lower incomes, lower spending, more diversion to the Internet), there isn’t much opportunity to keep adding new stores, especially in a competitive market where Oxnard is trying to fill up the brand new center they have sitting vacant. To refill our recent sales tax declines, we’d need the net sales tax of about ten new Walmarts, or their equivalent. For obvious reasons, that can’t happen and won’t. It still makes sense to “buy local” where a penny on every dollar stays home to fund city services. But we can’t build enough stores to restore a prosperous economy or the community services we’ve had to slash.

    So while Ventura’s entrepreneurial emphasis on high wage jobs may be experimental, at least we are fighting the right war. It will be a while before we know whether we are winning. But fighting the last war is a sure loser. Even if the economy “recovers,” it will be years before the region’s retail space is filled — if ever. The best thing we can do to create a healthy retail environment is to generate new wealth in our region through robust business and job growth.

    In the early years following Proposition 13, some cities led the way toward retail development in the war for sales tax dollars. Today, Ventura is adopting new tactics and weapons in the war for jobs. That may seem like a new and untested strategy. It is. Yet in a changing world, there is great opportunity to rebuild local prosperity on a new and stronger foundation.

    This article is part one of a two-part series by Rick Cole on the new war for jobs.

    Flckr photo of Ventura by ah zut

    Rick Cole is city manager of Ventura, California, and 2009 recipient of the Municipal Management Association of Southern California’s Excellence in Government Award. He can be reached at RCole@ci.ventura.ca.us

  • Denver Relocation: The Search for Higher Ground

    In 2003 our family relocated to Folsom, California from Carson City, Nevada, after my father-in-law was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, to help with his care. In many ways the transition felt like an immersion into what Joel Kotkin calls the “city of aspiration.” Folsom, a Sacramento region suburb of 50,000, was notable for its robust economy, impressive K-12 schools, world-class bike paths, and low crime. It offered a favorable environment for families and upwardly mobile professionals.

    Seven years later, the landscape has certainly changed. My father-in-law has passed on, and California’s high cost of living continues to have a profound impact on our personal finances. This scenario, coupled with the currently dire economic picture, gave my wife and I pause to again rethink our future path. After many long nights of thoughtful dialogue, we came to the realization that it was time to break ties with the Golden State. In early summer, Denver will become our next home.

    This pending relocation offers our family an opportunity to embrace what I call “the geography of place”— the merging of what one wants to do with where one wants to live. As a process, it embodies a deep exploration into our values and upbringing, hopes and fears, past and future. And while a move of any distance can be daunting, it’s this deeper journey of self that makes the experience rich and meaningful.

    Our plans come at a time of decline in nationwide domestic relocation. Prominent demographer William Frey, in conjunction with the Brookings Institution, led a recent study on migration trends. He found that in 2007-08, the overall U.S. migration rate reached its lowest point since World War II, particularly for long-distance moves and renters. His study also indicated that migrations to exurban and newer suburban counties dropped substantially, simultaneously bringing unanticipated population “windfalls” to many large urban centers. The overall rate of decline is largely attributed to the economic slowdown crippling many parts of the nation, leading to job and income loss as well as upside down mortgages.

    Deciding where to settle down during these uncertain times required a well-thought-out process grounded in a clear set of criteria. After much discussion, we developed the five-C approach to classify our optimum home locale:

    1. Culture: Our ideal environment should have a rich, culturally diverse set of demographics. As a biracial family, social acceptance in our community is paramount.

    2. Charm: Our perfect residential picture is a neighborhood that represents a hybrid of walkable urbanism, housing affordability, safety, and community, which are often found in more suburban environs.

    3. Community: We both enjoy opportunities for civic connection. Proximity to hubs of social connection – such as coffee houses and universities – is a must.

    4. Convenience: By choice we are a one-car household, which makes bicycle, light-rail and walkable accessibility to centers of city activity and conveniences key.

    5. Climate: As a native Midwesterner married to a Southern Californian, we found common ground in a locale offering a change of seasons with generally moderate temperature.

    The upshot of our vetting process had some correspondence with a recent Best Cities for a Fresh Start list compiled by relocation.com. Topping that list is Austin, Texas, an impressive city that I recently visited as a part of my urban research study tour. The Dallas/Ft. Worth area came in second, followed by Charlotte, North Carolina. Denver was fourth, with Columbus, Ohio (my hometown) and Indianapolis tying for fifth on the list.

    Our personal list yielded five locations:

    Portland, Oregon: This Pacific Northwest jewel has received much media attention for its progressive urban practices. And for good reason. It boasts strong community and civic vibes, great neighborhoods, a transportation system ranked among the best in the nation, and a hip, urbane population base. In the end, though, the overcast, rainy climate was too much to overcome in a transition from ever-sunny California.

    Ft. Worth, Texas: For economic vibrancy Ft. Worth, with its sister-city, Dallas, tops the list. It also has good reputation for housing options, schools, civic pride, and decent weather. On the downside, property taxes are a bit high (we estimate 6 to 10 times higher than Denver). And as a bi-racial couple we had some reservations since, as one area resident put it, “Texas is still the South.”

    Boise, Idaho: Despite concerns about Boise’s diversity, the area has extremely low housing costs. Its strong university presence (Boise State) and vibrant downtown were also appealing. On the downside, the airport would have posed some travel limitations. Moreover, the area lacks the depth of social and cultural options common in more urbanized settings.

    Indianapolis, Indiana: Having lived in the Indianapolis area in the early ‘90s, this state capital has always held a special place in my heart, with its strong African-American communities, myriad array of spectator sports, and low cost of living. While I’ll always be a Hoosier at heart, the advantages of this Midwestern city were outweighed by its bleak winter climate. My wife’s need for sunshine booted it out of contention.

    And then there was Denver.

    Denver, our city of choice, impressed us with its myriad quality-of-life intangibles. While not on the order of California, it is culturally diverse with a strong sense of civic vibrancy. The area offers a wealth of housing options that fit our parameters: semi-urban, walkable, affordable, and safe.

    Culturally, the city has a young, active vibe to it. People are involved in varied outdoor activities and events, which underscore the recognition of Denver as one of the most physically fit cities in the U.S. Many have also described it as unpretentious. It has a progressive political structure, as well as a strong economic development platform for the future.

    With a population of nearly 600,000, Denver is the 24th most populous city in the U.S. and the 16th most populous metropolitan area in the nation. Geographically, it’s located in the center of the U.S., nestled in a mountain range that makes harsh cold weather and winds a rarity. While the city gets its fair share of snow, the winter months are rarely bleak. In fact, a draw for many residents is the 300-plus days of sunshine the city receives each year.

    We stand to gain immeasurably moving from über-expensive California. And in terms of intangibles, several are prominent. We’re looking to capitalize on Denver’s new urbanist-influenced walkability. The city has lots of options, from the hip and trendy Lo Do District to the established community of Capitol Hill. A key requirement of our ultimate housing choice will be a quality school district, along with proximity to transportation, coffee houses, grocery stores, fine dining venues, and even co-working sites. In our current residence in Folsom, California, it’s a challenge to stroll by foot to area amenities.

    As intellectually inclined individuals, it was also exciting to find that Denver holds the distinction of being the most educated city in the U.S. with the highest percentage of high school and college graduates of any U.S. metropolitan area. According to census estimates, 92% of the metro area population has a high school diploma, and 35% has at least a bachelor’s degree, compared to the national average of 81.7% for high school diplomas and 23% with a college degree.

    And finally, as a former resident of Indianapolis, a city that fed my obsession for spectator sports, Denver’s robust athletics scene certainly raised my heart rate. The hub of professional franchises in football, basketball, baseball, and hockey, it is one of the nation’s top sports meccas. It has certainly sparked a picture in my mind of hanging out at sporting events, beer in hand, enjoying the scene.

    In the end, relocating to a new geographical locale is never smooth. It requires a great deal of thoughtfulness, conversation and patience. My family views it as the ultimate “Mile High” climb for higher ground amid the economic unsettledness currently affecting California. If well-orchestrated, the payoff will be significant: a better quality of life and a rich existence. That’s our hope; that’s our goal for 2010.

    Photo of Denver’s Lo Do district by Michael Scott

    Michael P. Scott is a Northern California urban journalist, demographic researcher and technical writer. He can be reached at michael@vdowntownamerica.com.

  • Random Wall Street Walking

    There was a popular book in 1973 – A Random Walk Down Wall Street. (by Burton Malkiel, now in its 9th edition, 2007) – that pooh-pooh’ed the idea that one investor’s stock picks could always be better than another investor’s stock picks. The punch line is that you could randomly throw darts at the Wall Street Journal financial pages and do just as well as anyone else investing in the stock market. I first read it in 1980, while taking Investment 101 in business school at night and editing economic research documents for the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco during the day. I had a very memorable argument with John P. Judd, then senior research economist and more recently special advisor to the Bank president and CEO Janet Yellen.

    John thought the Wall Street brokers were crazy for thinking they could make more than average returns on investment. I thought the Federal Reserve was crazy for thinking they could control the money supply. John was already a PhD economist; I was still working on my Bachelor degree in business administration.

    Twenty years later I also have a PhD in economics, but there are still two camps pulling in different directions in their dangerous tug-of-war on the economy. There are the double-dip pessimists led by Yale Economist Bob Shiller and most recently discouraged by Paul Ferrell of MarketWatch. And there are the “Mad Money” optimists who believe that Jim Cramer will tell them everything they need to know to get and stay rich, while Ben Bernanke consoles them with sound bites like “increased optimism among consumers … should aid the recovery.”

    At the heart of the problem is the same, original argument I had with John Judd – “is there a way to beat the averages” – except that this time around Wall Street is in bed with the Federal Reserve. You can no longer tell the crazies apart.

    Which brings me back to the Random Walk. If Wall Street has their way, they will inflate the market just enough to induce you to put your money back in. Don’t forget the Weenie Roast of 2008. If the government – either Congress or Treasury or the Federal Reserve – has their way, they will let it crash again, too. Don’t forget that it was only Wall Street that got bailed out the last time. I think the chances are 50-50 either way.

  • All In The Family

    For over a generation pundits, policymakers and futurists have predicted the decline of the American family. Yet in reality, the family, although changing rapidly, is becoming not less but more important.

    This can be traced to demographic shifts, including immigration and extended life spans, as well as to changes of attitudes among our increasingly diverse population. Furthermore, severe economic pressures are transforming the family–as they have throughout much of history–into the ultimate “safety net” for millions of people.

    Those who argue the family is less important note that barely one in five households–although more than one-third of the total population–consists of a married couple with children living at home. Yet family relations are more complex than that; people remain tied to one another well after they first move away. My mother, at 87, is still my mother, after all, as well as the grandmother to my daughters. Those ties still dominate her actions and attitudes.

    Critically, marriage, the basis of the family, is also far from a dying institution. Sociologist Andrew Cherlin notes that over 80% of Americans eventually get married, often after a period of cohabitation. Later marriages are also reflected in later childrearing. Younger women today may be less likely to have children, but far more older women are giving birth; since 1982 the number of those over 35 who give birth has more than tripled. This trend has accelerated and will continue to do so given advances in natal science.

    More important, people continue to value the stability and cohesion that only families can provide. According to social historian Stephanie Coontz, Americans today are more likely to be in regular contact with their parents than in the past. Some 90% consider their parental relations close, and far more children are likely to live with at least one parent now than they were as recently as the 1940s.

    To be sure, as Coontz makes clear, the 21st-century family will not reprise the Ozzie-and-Harriet norms of the 1950s. Everything from divorce to immigration and gay marriage is reshaping family relations. While Americans may “swing back” to a more family-oriented society, social historian Alan Wolfe notes, “it will be with a difference.”

    But family will remain the central force that informs our communities and economy. For example, when people move, a 2008 Pew study reveals, they tend to go to areas where they have relatives. Family, as one Pew researcher notes, “trumps money when people make decisions about where to live.”

    Perhaps nothing better illustrates this trend than the increase in multigenerational households. As people live longer and produce offspring later, family ties are strengthening. A recent Pew survey reveals that the number of households accommodating at least two adult generations has grown in recent years. Today the percentage of such multigenerational households–some 16%–is higher than any time since the 1950s and swelled by some 7 million since 2000. At the same time, the once rapid growth of single-person households, which nearly tripled since the 1950s, has begun to slow and, among those over 65, has declined in recent years.

    Rather than be hived off in isolation, grandparents are playing a larger role in family life, both as financial supporters and as sources of reliable child care. Living with or being close to grandparents is particularly important for younger Americans, many of whom are struggling to raise families in expensive regions such as New York or Los Angeles. As Queens resident and real estate agent Judy Markowitz puts it, “In Manhattan, people with kids have nannies. In Queens, we have grandparents.”

    As these caregivers age, in turn, they will require help for themselves. One welcome change, already evolving, is the number of older adults moving in with their children. Institutionalized care for people over 75, once seen as inevitable, has dropped since the mid-1980s, as more families hire part-time help or have aging parents move in with them.

    Today as many as 6 million grandparents live with their offspring, allowing, by one estimate, as many as half a million people to avoid nursing homes. Between 2000 and 2007, according to the Census Bureau, the number of people over 65 living with adult children increased by more than 50%. One California builder reports that one third of new home buyers want a “granny flat,” an addition to accommodate an aging parent. Roughly one third of American homes have the potential to create such units. In the coming decades homes that can be adapted to the changing needs of families will become an increasingly desirable commodity.

    Arguably the strongest force for continued importance of family comes from the two groups, ethnic minorities and millennials, who will shape the next few decades. Immigrants, particularly Latinos and Asians, are also far more likely to live in married households with children than are other Americans. They are also more than twice as likely, according to Pew, to live in households with at least two adult generations.

    The other key group will be the millennials, those Americans born since 1982. As noted generational researchers Morley Winograd and Mike Hais suggest in their landmark book Millennial Makeover, the rising “millennial” or “echo boom” generation–those born after 1983–enjoy more favorable relations with their parents: Half stay in daily touch, and almost all are in weekly contact.

    The millennials, Winograd and Hais suggest, generally do not share the generational angst that defined many boomers. Indeed three-quarters of 13-to-24-year-olds, according to one 2007 survey, consider time spent with family the greatest source of happiness, rating it even higher than time spent with friends or a significant other. And they seem determined to start families of their own: More than 80% think getting married will make them happy, and some 77% say they definitely or probably will want children, while less than 12% say they likely will not.

    The current tough economic conditions may be slowing family formation but is clearly bolstering close, long-term ties between children and parents. One quarter of Gen Xers, for example, still receive financial help from their parents, as do nearly a third of those under 25.This trend has been mounting since well before the recession. Ten percent of all adults younger than 35 told Pew researchers last year that they had moved in with their parents over the past year.

    Higher college debts, high home prices and a less-than-vibrant job market could all extend this virtual adolescence in which children maintain strong ties of dependence into adulthood. Although these conditions may increase support for more governmental assistance among some, young people are finding out there’s one institution that, despite political shifts, really can be counted on: the family.

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.com.

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

    Photo: driki

  • Queensland: Housing Relief on the Horizon?

    Queensland might be thought of as the Florida of Australia. Like Florida, Queensland is the “Sunshine state.” For years, Queensland has been the fastest growing state in the nation, just as Florida has been the fastest growing large state in the United States. The Gold Coast in Southeast Queensland might be characterized as Miami Beach on steroids.

    Both states have also faced housing difficulties. With its smart growth land rationing policies, house prices escalated wildly in Florida and then collapsed as America’s “drunken sailor” lending policies came home to roost. Queensland has had similar “urban consolidation” land rationing policies and the same house price escalation has occurred. However, the price bust did not follow, because lending standards were more strict. This is because adults were in charge of finance in Australia instead of the cartoon characters that drove policy in the United States. Australian lenders at least asked borrowers if they had a job and checked their pulse.

    But there are still housing problems in Queensland. The Urban Development Institute of Australia Queensland has just released its two Richardson reports that, among other things, suggest that restrictions on housing are increasing household sizes. In recent years, only one new house has been produced for each new resident, which compares to an average household size of 2.5. Presumably younger people are living longer with their parents and perhaps, with the strong foreign immigration to Australia, there is substantial “doubling up,” as houses are shared by people who would not otherwise live together, such as multiple families (internationally, census authorities define a household as all of the people living in a single house).

    Median lot prices and median house prices have risen strongly in Queensland, which has led to a decline in housing construction and a loss of construction jobs. The report recommends allowing more housing development on greenfield sites and developing additional infrastructure on the urban fringe where more housing would be developed. Finally, the report urges that the state establish benchmarks for the time it takes to approve and build greenfield developments.

    The Richardson reports are just another indication that the severity of the housing crisis and its causes is more broadly understood in Australia. Queensland would do well to follow its recommendations.

    Photo: Gold Coast

  • The Heartland Will Play a Huge Role in America’s Future

    One of the least anticipated developments in the nation’s 21st-century geography will be the resurgence of the American Heartland, often dismissed by coastal dwellers as “flyover country.”

    Yet in the coming 40 years, as America’s population reaches 400 million, the American Heartland particularly the vast region between the Rocky Mountains and the Mississippi will gain in importance.

    To fully appreciate this opportunity, Americans need to see the Heartland as far more than a rural or an agricultural zone. Although food production will remain a crucial component of its economy, high-tech services, communications, energy production, manufacturing and warehouses will serve as the critical levers for new employment and wealth creation.

    This contradicts the common media portrayal of the Great Plains as a kind of Mad Max environment a postmodern, desiccated, lost world of emptying towns, meth labs and militant Native Americans about to reclaim a place best left to the forces of nature.

    Some environmentalists and academics even have embraced the idea, popularized by New Jersey academics Frank J. Popper and Deborah Popper, that Washington, D.C., accelerate the depopulation of the Plains and create “the ultimate national park.” Their suggestion is that the government return the land and communities to a “buffalo commons.”

    Yet ironically, the future of the Heartland particularly its cities will be tied, in part, to growing migration from the expensive, crowded coasts. Already, the growth capacity for “mega- cities” like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles may be approaching their limits as the urban megalopolis of cities, suburbs and exurbs become more crowded and expensive.

    As huge urbanized regions become less desirable or unaffordable for many businesses and middle-class families, more and more Americans will find their best future in the wide-open spaces that, even in 2050, will still exist across the continent. The beneficiaries will include places as diverse as Fargo and Sioux Falls in the Dakotas to Des Moines, Oklahoma City, Omaha and Kansas City.

    Many of these areas are now enjoying both population growth and net domestic in-migration even as the nation’s most ballyhooed “hip cool” regions like the Bay Area, Los Angeles, New York City and Chicago experience slower growth. Fargo, N.D., Sioux Falls, S.D., Des Moines and Bismarck, N.D., for example, all grew well faster than the national average throughout the past decade.

    Economics undergirds this trend. Unemployment in the Great Plains has remained relatively low, even during the recession that began in 2007. For much of the decade, the biggest problem facing many businesses has been finding enough workers.

    In the future, some will thrive by the production of energy or specialized manufactured products. Others will serve as magnets for tourists, hunters, bird-watchers, arts festivals and pageants. Small rural college towns may serve as refuges for empty nesters relocating or returning from the congested, expensive coasts.

    The critical sources for the evolving resurgence of the Heartland lie both in new technology and traditional strengths.

    The advent of the Internet, which has broken the traditional isolation of rural communities, has facilitated the movement of technology companies, business services and manufacturing firms to the nation’s interior. This will reinforce not so much a movement to remote hamlets but to the growing number of dynamic small cities and towns throughout the Heartland.

    The other critical element concerns the traditional role of the Heartland as a producer of critical raw materials. As world competition for food and energy supplies intensifies, a critical primary advantage for the United States in contrast with China, India, Japan and the European Union will lie with the vast natural abundance of its Heartland regions.

    New investment will flow back into the Heartland to tap previously difficult-to-access resources such as oil and gas, while new technologies will exploit prodigious natural sources such as wind.

    Equally critical, the Heartland will reconnect America with its own historic strengths as a great, largely open, continental nation, a place of aspiration that can accommodate future growth. The Heartland reinforces our national character, what Frederick Jackson Turner called “that restless, nervous energy; that dominant individualism, working for good or evil … that buoyancy and exuberance which comes with freedom.”

    As the population expands to 400 million people, Americans will need to tap that spirit more than ever.

    This article originally appeared at the Omaha World Herald.

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

    Photo by: Sacred Destinations