New Geography

Tag: economic development

  • A Milestone on the Road to Becoming a Third-World Economy

    Northrop Grumman Corp started California’s New Year by announcing it is moving its headquarters to the Washington D.C. area. Unfortunately, they are neither the first nor the last major corporation to leave Southern California. It is a trend, one that may not last much longer, though since aren’t that many major corporations still headquartered in greater Los Angeles.

    For decades, Southern California was the center of the aerospace world, a basic part of the Southern California’s DNA. Now, once Northrop leaves, there will be no major aerospace companies still headquartered in Southern California.

    Aerospace is not the only industry abandoning Southern California. The region was once host to financial giants, like Bank of America, Security Pacific Bank, Countrywide, and First Interstate. Today, there are none. California was once a major automobile manufacturing state, with a dozen plants. Even the entertainment industry is slowly shifting away from its Hollywood roots.

    When you lose corporate headquarters, you lose more than jobs. You lose the tax base, the leadership, the philanthropic giving, and the intangibles. Corporate headquarters are usually very good citizens.

    Many local political leaders ignore this business’ exodus, or make excuses. The decline of the U.S. defense spending, aerospace spending in particular, is often given as a reason for the decline. But the last decade was not a bad one for defense; the industry thrived, just not in Southern California.

    The reasons for this exodus are both simpler and less flattering than those usually given. One big reason is selfishness. California’s decline chose to consume, and not to produce. Wealthy, aging, Baby Boomers control the state. In the cause of “quality of life,” or “the environment,” they have succeeded in limiting opportunity for everyone else.

    The other big reason for decline lies with governments, state and local, that now exist to serve themselves and not their citizens. The level of government goods and services, even infrastructure and basics, has declined, but state spending, adjusted for inflation and population, has continued to soar. The difference has been going into public employee’s pockets, through higher salaries, benefits, and generous retirement programs.

    Remarkably, no Southern California economic sector is in ascendancy. Unemployment remains well above the national average, particularly in the middle class Inland Empire. The growth in bankruptcies has been about twice that of the United States. The state is becoming less equitable, the divide between those who have and those who do not have constantly growing, the middle class declining.

    Southern California is starting to look a lot like a third-world economy, service based, inequitable, serving a wealthy, mostly aging few, with little opportunity for younger workers and a large underclass. Changing the region’s prospects will be very difficult. Nothing short of a major generational change in leadership is likely to change the current sad trajectory.

  • Forgetting Middle Skill Jobs

    A new report from Skills2Compete attempts to address a national problem which continues to diminish our country’s competitive edge in the global economy. The loss of middle-skill jobs and the lack of qualified workers to fill the remaining jobs are major barriers, not only to our economic recovery, but also to our ability to sustain a high quality of life for succeeding generations. The report concludes that a new state policy is needed to align the workforce and education and training to better meet California’s labor market demand. Accomplishing that goal means improving basic skills in the workforce and ensuring that skills training and education is available to anyone post high school. A major policy change is a good start, but the report does not go far enough in addressing what is needed to restore the importance of middle-skill jobs to the economy.

    Part of the challenge lies with the current mindset of the public education system and parents who value and push college as the only track to a well-paying and satisfying job. This leaves out a large segment of youth and the workforce who are not college bound and who need training and skills and encouragement to fill middle-skill jobs. Where does a high school student get vocational training or learn about middle skill jobs? Remember woodworking? Metal shop? Drafting?

    Vocational education was the name of the program that provided these courses, but now it’s labeled “career tech” and the classes are no longer available in most public high schools. As a result, students have little awareness of these careers. A few years ago, while conducting focus groups of freshman and sophomore students, I was stunned to learn that many did not know what an electrician, welder, auto technician, or HVAC technician did and worse, they disdained those jobs because they thought they were “dirty” and didn’t pay well. This doesn’t bode well for a functioning society or economy. Who will service our cars, fix our plumbing, and build machinery to process our food or the solar panels to heat our homes? It will take more than a policy change to transform awareness, perceptions and values about middle-skill jobs.

    The last economic boom was sustained, not by wealth created by high value manufacturing jobs, but by unbridled consumer spending particularly for houses and retail goods. If we want that standard of living to return, then we must address the greater challenge of how to grow and sustain an economy driven by production of goods instead of consumption. Along with a paradigm shift in our educational system that recognizes the importance of middle skill jobs, we must change our attitudes about work and what creates value not only for our economy but our worth to society.

    We continue to hold on to arcane principles and entitled expectations about work that are increasingly less relevant in a fast-paced globalized world. We are not prepared to re-invent ourselves and our careers in terms of continuous learning of new skills and training either for middle-skill or knowledge jobs. That is what is ultimately needed to succeed in the rapidly changing workplace.

    Leslie Parks has spent over ten years as a practitioner and consultant in the fields of economic and workforce development. She recently served as Director of Downtown Management and Industrial Development for the San Jose Redevelopment Agency until September 23, 2009 when she and 24 colleagues were laid off due to significant budget cuts. Leslie is now preparing for yet another career in the 21st Century workplace.

  • Webinar: The Future of Rural America

    New Geography publisher Delore Zimmerman will host a webinar next week discussing the future of rural america. The webinar is part of the Rural Broadband Initiative organized by Northern Minnesota’s Blandin Foundation.

    From Blandin:

    If you are interested in rural community and economic development trends, this webinar is for you. Delore Zimmerman will provide guidance for rural community leaders about development trends and the steps communities must take to increase their investment attractiveness.

    The role that technology plays in increasing economic vitality will be presented both in theory and practice, and Delore will include information about successful regional economic development strategies.

    Here’s more information and registration for this free webinar.

  • Chicago: Preventing the Self-Destruction of Diversity

    Chicago’s urban core has boomed in a way that makes most other cities jealous. Every time you turn around, it seems, another gem is added to it. The Renzo Piano designed Modern Wing at the Art Institute recently opened its doors to general, if not universal, acclaim, for example.

    But while this boom is to be celebrated, and clearly it has been necessary to sustain the animating life force of the city as a whole, there are long term threats that need to be considered.

    The first is that all booms tend to contain within themselves the seeds of their own collapse. We’ve seen that with the dot.com bubble, the real estate bubble, and the finance bubble, the last two of which are really weighing on Chicago. Growth feeds on itself in a type of positive reinforcement loop. If it hits a certain point, it can really take off, as in a typically “hockey stick” diagram. The problem is that some point the trend reaches the point of exhaustion, and the hangover can be a bear. Most stable systems employ negative feedback controls or stabilizers to “take away the punch bowl just as the party is getting started”.

    The real challenge, however, is what Jane Jacobs called the “self destruction of diversity”. Thriving urban districts require a mixtures of users and uses acting to mutually sustain and energize a neighborhood. But what has a tendency to happen is that, as an area becomes popular, land values go up and rents go up. There is greater demand for and competition for the space. Because of this, the most economically successful use of the moment tends to become increasingly dominant. This is particularly the case if that use benefits from face to face interactions among multiple players in the space and clustering economics.

    Jacobs also talked about the requirement that neighborhoods contain buildings of a mixture of ages, such that they require differing levels of economic rent. New enterprises, particularly in wholly new fields, often require space that is available at low cost. So if there are no low cost buildings in an area, tomorrow’s new industries can’t often get started in a place at all. While she didn’t quite put it this way, this notion is often paraphrased as “new ideas require old buildings”.

    The boom in Chicago causes concern on both of these fronts. Firstly, the great Loop area is increasingly dominated by two uses: financial and business services for the global city function of Chicago, and entertainment/tourism. To some extent, the Loop has always had these characteristics as a typical CBD. And in many respects, the streets are far more active today than they were in an era not that long ago when the streets in the Loop really did roll up at 6pm.

    The real problem is that the boom in the Loop has generated enormous opportunity for profit in the redevelopment of older buildings. Many older buildings have been demolished completely, or preserved only the form of the “facadectomy”. A number of vintage office skyscrapers have been converted to residential use. The high rent district, which used to apply mostly to the core of Loop, now extends far to the West and South instead of just the traditional north. The number of places where one can obtain low-rent space in the greater Loop area would appear to have declined significantly.

    The same forces are operating in residential areas, which are increasingly taking on the cast of New Urbanist suburbs. Housing prices keep out all but the already affluent in many places. Rents have followed suit, leading to a predominance of swanky establishements catering primarily to consumption by the upscale: restaurants, clubs, boutiques, spas, etc. A number of formerly industrial districts have been reborn as more or less single use large format retail strips.

    What will the long term affect of this be? I don’t know. I do think it is something worth of consideration. Affordable housing is obviously something that is on the radar of many groups. But the idea of affordable office or industrial space less so. We want the Loop to be successful, but also I think there should be policies developed that are designed to actively sustain its diversity over time.

    The danger is that the Loop becomes increasingly concentrated in ever most high value specialized services. (I’ve even suggested how we might encourage this through cross-regional collaboration). This can be good in that it keeps Chicago a player at the pinnacle of the global economy. But it also exposes Chicago to the risk of niche exhaustion. And with the global city functions an artifact of globalization as we know it today, any disruption or further evolution of that model could seriously hit Chicago.

    As I’ve long argued, in an ever more rapidly changing, uncertain world, it is critical for cities to have a diversity of strategies and future options for success, and not put all their eggs in one basket. Chicago needs to continue reinforcing its success, but it also needs to look at how to diversify that success so that when, as it inevitably will, economic needs change, Chicago is right there with the next new thing. While picking winners and losers is a problematic concept, at a minimum the city should be looking at how to preserve the conditions necessary for success.

    Interestingly, the city has already taken some steps here. It created the concept of a “Planned Manufacturing District” to prevent residential encroachment into surviving manufacturing zones like the Kinzie Corridor. A good move. While mono-use isn’t always a good thing, for a traditionally manufacturing area, I think this is a decent strategy. We should be looking at similar means of preserving the favorable economics for new ideas in the urban core as well.

    More Chicago:

    Chicago: A Declaration of Independence

    Reconnecting the Hinterland Series
    Part 1A: Metropolitan Connections
    Part 1B: High Speed Rail
    Part 2A: Onshore Outsourcing
    Part 2B: On Innovation

    On the Chicago Economy
    Chicago: Corporate Headquarters and the Global City
    The Financial Crisis: Good for Chicago?

  • Michigration Revisited

    Only a few months ago, I admonished Michigan for its hysteria about brain drain. Given the recent news coverage concerning the exodus from the recession-plagued state, you might expect I’m ready to eat some crow. On the contrary, I’m here to report that Michigan has learned nothing from its past mistakes.

    Richard Herman, an advocate for increasing rates of immigration to the Rust Belt, posts on his blog the same critique I have aired about how Michigan addresses its talent crisis:

    However, the current focus on “brain drain” as the source of the problem misses the real issue.

    While no doubt the Midwest economy is causing college grads who might otherwise want to stay home to leave, in an ever more mobile society, moving out is a natural part of people’s lives. Indeed, if you read the typical account of how the elite global knowledge worker lives, you often hear about people flitting from place to place to place chasing opportunity.

    The real problem is not that too many people are leaving, but rather that too few are coming. It isn’t an outflow problem, it’s an inflow problem.

    The former urban industrial powerhouses of the United States all suffer from the same malaise. Every city is fixated on its local labor pool, asking institutions of education to staff the “factory.” The great irony is that economic growth doesn’t happen without immigration or domestic in-migration. There is no story of a great metropolis that successfully barred its people from leaving.

    The tortured metaphor for brain drain stems from private enterprise. But even in the arena of human resources, the concept of churn isn’t an anathema:

    The purpose of this article is to open your mind about the silliness of measuring only aggregate turnover. I can think of no better indication of a so-called expert’s lack of true understanding of employee turnover than when I read an article or a book on retention and the author invariably expounds on the need to keep everyone.

    The burgeoning narrative is that churn benefits both employee and employer. The same is true for resident and state. Fear of the outsider prevents all parties from making a rational choice and improving human welfare.

    Michigan should embrace its out-migration and aggressively seek new residents. I further recommend any reference to “retention” be abolished from official policy. Where, and how many, graduates go is largely immaterial. Instead of Cool Cities to keep Michigan talent instate; what would it take to get the next generation of engineers from Colorado schools or Asia to move to the Rust Belt?

  • Infrasystems Build 21st Century Economies

    Infrastructure investment has been a key driver of economic development throughout American history. In our country’s earliest days, the building of canals and turnpikes, followed by construction of railroads, greatly catalyzed expansion and development. Later, investment in electricity and telephone networks facilitated the development of vast expanses of the American landscape. More recently, the national interstate highway system and now the continuing build-out of broadband telecommunications networks have democratized the geography of business endeavors that were once confined to large metropolitan centers.

    Highways, airports, harbors, utility distribution systems, railways, water and sewer systems, and communications networks remain critical elements in economic development. But in today’s globally competitive, net-centric economy a great advantage will accrue to regions and industries that develop sophisticated “infrasystems” including such innovation infrastructure such as university and lab facilities, technology and training centers, export processing facilities, and research parks.

    These infrasystems – integrating facilities, technology and advanced socio-technical capabilities – have emerged as key drivers of innovation and the locus of future higher-value industries and higher-paying jobs.

    Infrasystems differ by region. For some communities they can be constructed around a key asset such as a local hospital, equipped with medical technology and operated by a highly skilled staff of health care professionals. For a place like Wenatchee, Washington where Internet giant Yahoo decided to locate a data center, the key infrasystems asset lay in a highly aggressive economic development community and low cost, clean energy.

    Wenatchee represents a classic success story for an infrasystems approach. They took many of the right steps including a $12 million investment by the Port of Chelan County and others in the Confluence Technology Center, a state‐of‐the art facility built specifically to attract information technology companies to the area. Another factor in this success is $50 million investment by the Chelan County Public Utility District (PUD) in laying fiber‐optic cable to homes and businesses.

    If our infrastructure policy and financing debate is going to center around miles of paved road, number of bridges or even the number of construction jobs – certainly all worthy objectives – we could still miss the key target of creating long-term employment and making our country, and regions, more competitive. Advanced infrasystems represent the cutting edge economic tool of the 21st Century.