New Geography

Tag: Financial Crisis

  • Make Sure All That Infrastructure Spending Is Well Supported

    It’s the new buzzword: infrastructure.

    President-elect Barack Obama has promised billions in infrastructure spending as part of a public works program bigger than any since the interstate highway system was built in the 1950s. Though it was greeted with hosannas, his proposal is only tapping into a clamor for such spending that’s been rising ever since Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005 and a major bridge collapsed in Minneapolis last year. With the economy now officially in recession, the rage for new brick and mortar is reaching a fever pitch.

    But before we commit hundreds of billions to new construction projects, we should focus on just what kind of infrastructure investment we should – and shouldn’t – be making. More important, we should think beyond temporary stimulus and make-work jobs and about investments that will propel the economy well into this century.

    After all, it’s not that we stopped spending on infrastructure over the past decade. It’s that mostly, we haven’t spent on the right things.

    New York City, for example, has wasted billions on its bloated bureaucracy and on constructing new sports stadiums and other ephemera deemed necessary to maintain Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s “luxury city.” Meanwhile, many of its subway and rail lines have deteriorated. Over the decades, brownouts and blackouts, caused in part by underinvestment in energy infrastructure, have become common during periods of high energy use in the summer.

    Similarly, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has extolled the Golden State as “the cutting-edge state . . . a model not just for 21st-century American society but the world.” Yet California’s once envied water-delivery systems, roadways, airports and schools are in serious disrepair. Many even more hard-pressed communities – Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Baltimore and New Orleans – have similarly wasted limited treasure on spectacular new convention centers, sports arenas, arts and entertainment facilities and hotels while allowing schools, roads, ports and other critical sinews of economic life to fray.

    Convention centers and other tourist attractions create reasonably high-paying construction jobs in the short term, but over time, they create an economy dominated by lower-wage service jobs. Take New Orleans. It was once one of the nation’s great industrial and commercial centers. But then the city turned its back for decades on its diverse economic base and invested not in levees, port development and basic infrastructure but in the arts, culture and tourism. The tourism and convention business surged, but the result was a low-wage economy. Nearly 40 percent of New Orleans households, or twice the national average, earned less than $20,000 a year in 2000.

    Other places have followed a similar trajectory of folly, heavily subsidizing luxury condominiums, restaurants and other amenities to help lure the so-called creative class. Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s 2003 plan to turn her state around focused on creating “cool cities” aimed at attracting hip, educated workers to Detroit and other failing urban centers. Instead of sparking an economic revival, Granholm has presided over a mass exodus of younger workers who can’t find jobs in her state.

    Perhaps no place epitomizes misplaced priorities better than Pittsburgh. Widely hailed in the media as a poster child for the urban “renaissance,” Pittsburgh has suffered a precipitous decline in population: Its 310,000 residents are less than half its 1950 peak. It now shares with parts of the former East Germany the gloomy demographic of having more residents die each year than are born.

    Like other cities, Pittsburgh has sought to revive itself with billions in new stadiums, arenas and cultural facilities. Meanwhile, its roads and bridges are in a constant state of disrepair. Most recently, the city embarked on a scheme to create a 1.2-mile, $435 million transit tunnel under the Allegheny River to connect downtown’s heavily subsidized towers with taxpayer-funded pro sports stadiums and a new casino. This “tunnel to nowhere,” derided by a local columnist as the nation’s “premier transit boondoggle,” will no doubt be the sort of thing many states and localities will seek federal infrastructure funds for, justifying them on the basis of both short-term economic stimulus and some kind of “green” agenda.

    Although some new spending on efforts such as developing alternative fuels could improve efficiencies, many “green” projects seem destined to devolve into little more than expensive boondoggles. A recent program passed by the Los Angeles City Council, for example, calls on the city-owned utility’s ratepayers to subsidize installing solar panels on office buildings. This plan, heavily promoted by labor lobbyists, mandates that the project be carried out by the Department of Water and Power, whose employees are among the most well-paid public workers in the nation. By some estimates, it would raise the price of electricity by as much as 8 percent. But it will do nothing to slow the continued flight of industrial and other employment from Los Angeles or its suburbs.

    A “red-green” tilt to infrastructure programs – essentially marrying the labor and environmental lobbies – also seems sure to raise spending on public mass-transit projects. Some transit or rail spending can, of course, promote efficiency and productivity. A significant incentive to increase rail freight, for example, could boost productivity in the critical manufacturing, agriculture and energy industries because rail can generally carry far more goods on less fuel than long-haul trucking.

    Spending on upkeep of transit systems in older centralized cities such as New York, Washington and Chicago also seems logical. But with few exceptions – the heavily traveled corridor between downtown Houston and the Texas Medical Center, for instance – ridership on most new rail systems outside the traditional cities has remained paltry, accounting for barely 1 or 2 percent of all commuters. Such projects are almost absurdly expensive on a per-capita basis; the Allegheny Institute, a Pennsylvania think tank that pursues free-market solutions to local questions, estimates that the cost to the taxpayer of each trip through the new Pittsburgh tunnel could be as much as $15.

    Infrastructure investment requires a strong litmus test. Where the cash goes should be determined chiefly on the basis of how the spending will enhance the nation’s productive capacity and raise incomes across the board. This also means looking beyond traditional brick and mortar investments to critical skills shortages. Businesspeople nationwide complain repeatedly of a chronic shortage of skilled blue-collar workers and technicians. More than 80 percent of 800 U.S. manufacturing firms surveyed in 2005 reported “a shortage of qualified workers overall.” Nine in 10 firms said that they faced a “moderate-to-severe shortfall” in qualified technicians.

    In sharp contrast to sports stadiums and convention centers, programs in skills training for U.S.-based industries such as aerospace, energy, machine tools and agricultural equipment tend to create high-wage jobs, which have expanded over the past decade even as the overall number of industrial positions has declined. Many industrial companies are increasingly desperate for skilled workers and often consider locating wherever they can be found. These companies also produce many jobs that, though not located on the factory floor, are critical to the nation’s competitive edge. For example, the Manufacturing Institute estimates that manufacturers employ one-fourth of all scientists and 40 percent of engineers.

    A forward-looking infrastructure program would also target places that would most benefit from new roads, bridges, ports and other critical facilities, including underperforming regions such as the Great Plains, Appalachia and rural Pennsylvania, as well as the depressed Great Lakes area. These areas offer cheaper labor and housing, prime locations and access to natural resources. Making them more accessible to markets and more energy efficient could replicate the great New Deal success in modernizing much of the South and West.

    Perhaps most critical, we need to look at how to combine new physical investments with new initiatives in skills training, incubating small companies and promoting better ties with local universities and research facilities. This “infrasystems” approach has been implemented successfully in places as diverse as North Dakota’s Red River Valley, the area around Wenatchee, Wash., and in various Southern locales such as Charleston and Savannah.

    The call for more spending on infrastructure represents a unique opportunity to rebuild our productive economy and create long-term middle-class jobs. But if the effects are going to last, the trick is to concentrate on the basics and forget the flashy, feel-good kinds of projects that have characterized many “infrastructure” investments in recent years.

    This article originally appeared at Washington Post.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History and is finishing a book on the American future.

  • Rethinking Risk During a Financial Crisis: Learning from Mexico

    Last month I visited a small town in southern Mexico. It is a quiet and modestly prosperous place. Outside some of the homes are older Suburbans, Jeeps and Explorers; the license plates show that their owners have recently returned from the US, driven out by the collapsing economy and heightened nativist anxieties. Almost every family, it seems, has some member who has spent time up north; only a very few of them are still hanging on through the recession.

    For the most part, Mexicans are innocent by-standers in the current financial debacle. They didn’t allow themselves to be talked into strange mortgages or multiple credit cards; whether north or south of the border, this is for them still predominantly a cash economy. Even for those who went to the US, their key goal was to accumulate dollars and send them south, where, as pesos, they provide the basics and even a few luxuries for many families. Until recently, these remittances have been second only to oil income in importance for Mexico; now both are shrinking fast.

    There is something more than a little unfair in the manner in which the recession is hurting our southern neighbor. Mexicans, for the most part, have a personal risk calculus that is the complete reverse of ours. Like most people who have experienced hard times, they are not obsessed with the little things that might go awry; they don’t place little flags around puddles in the grocery store, and most dogs have never received a rabies shot. The sidewalks often look as though a tree is trying to push its way through the ground and electrical cables are frequently visible. It’s not unusual to see a local butcher frying up vast cauldrons of meats in front of his carnecineria, something that would drive American health inspectors to apoplexy.

    In contrast to their wealthier Northern neighbors, Mexicans seem quite happy to take responsibility for themselves and don’t expect to sue someone every time they stub their toe. But their collective view of risk is also the reverse of ours. Property is, for most people, something to live in and not something for speculation. Building one’s own home is common but it’s usually done in stages, whenever there is cash to spare. The results may be untidy, with streets perpetually possessing the appearance of construction zones, but there is no evidence of any foreclosure crisis—forests of ‘for sale’ signs are absent, in Veracruz, at least.

    Nor is that the only visual difference between nondescript Mexican and American cities. Antiseptic zoning is much less common in Mexico, with the result that families live above the store, or behind the workshop, or even on the roof of some buildings. Affluent homes may stand next to literal ruins. In most American cities, this would be evidence of a neighborhood slipping into decay, causing realtors to flee to more ordered areas. But for Mexicans, this juxtaposition simply adds to the sense of being in an organic place rather than on a Disney set. What it means for neighborliness is hard to judge, but it would certainly make an interesting comparative research project.

    Of course, there are some equivalents to the homogenous subdivisions that dominate the American housing market. I saw several large up-scale gated communities that were standing idle, waiting for better times. I was also shown several housing developments, where government agencies were building terraced homes for state workers. What is striking to the visitor is that these would never be offered in the US housing market, as they would be judged to be unacceptably small. At approximately one thousand square feet, they are half the size of the average American home, (approximately 2200 square feet) and significantly smaller than most new houses.

    Even though Mexican families are, on average, larger (with more children and more generations living together), the expectation is not that every member of the family gets a bathroom or even a bedroom. It is also common to buy small and build out, or up, as needs dictate and finances permit. Anyone who has traveled in Asia will also be familiar with this phenomenon, which manifests itself in ground floor apartments that encroach upon the street, balconies that become bedrooms and so forth. High density and modest means lead to invention, if not the kinds of appearance mandated by Home Owner Associations or preferred by the fusspot New Urbanist designers.

    In the past, the Mexican financial system has been criticized for maintaining a tight hold on credit. Even before the current crisis, high interest rates were unfriendly to the consumer, slowing the pace of both urban development and speculation. Given our current crisis, perhaps it’s worth asking whether this points to how the American market may develop in the future. Certainly, we can expect that credit will remain tight for a significant while. The rules for obtaining a mortgage will become more onerous; interest rates will be fixed, appraisals will be exact. McMansions will be of little interest except to large families of means; smaller and older homes will be at a premium. Definitions of overcrowding may change; design expectations will be downsized, and home maintenance will become more usual. As opportunities in the formal labor marketplace shrink, perhaps for an extended period, more Americans will work from their homes and garages, much as occurs in many developing countries.

    There may also be significantly less mobility, with little or no speculative purchasing. This is likely to have the greatest impact on the condominium market. Even affluent parents will be obligated to keep their college-age kids on campus rather than in condos that they hope to flip after graduation. And even when they have a degree, these young adults – with large student loans, minimal credit and no cash for a down payment – will become used to staying with their parents for longer periods, as is frequently the case in Mexico and other developing markets. This could extend into marriage and even family formation. The condos themselves will, for the foreseeable future, revert to rental properties, catering to those who can no longer maintain a foothold in the owner market.

    This does not imply that American cities are going to turn into Mexican ones any time soon. But there is much to be learned by studying the ways that Mexicans calculate risk. We might have fewer families borrowing beyond their means, and continually trying to beat the market. And with less aggregate risk in one part of our lives, we might then view other parts of our daily world with a little less obsession with control. We might be a little more relaxed about who lives next door; we might also be a little more tolerant about the age of their truck or the color of the drapes. After all, they might be Mexican, in which case we know that, if they are there, they can probably actually afford it.

    Andrew Kirby is the editor of the interdisciplinary Elsevier journal “Cities.”This is his 20th year as a resident of Arizona.

  • Former Insider on the Auto Bailout: Never Underestimate Brainpower in Detroit

    In all the many (how many) years I worked as an engineer in and around the auto industry, I got to compare conditions in Europe, Japan and America. Yet in many ways the American situation was perhaps the most tragic – the most potential, most eagerly squandered. It’s not Americans who are flawed, but the business model imposed from the top.

    For example, I do not believe American engineers are inferior to those working elsewhere. It’s just the way their inputs are handled. Toyota and Honda have long-term viable plans that forecast many years down the road. This gives engineers a clear direction.

    On the other hand, Detroit’s automakers, as well as some European ones, tend to look at short-term gains in order to satisfy shareholders. GM’s big problems were due to planning short-term while sacrificing the farm down the road.

    GM became too big. They had too many brands and too many models. Alfred P. Sloan created all these brands in order to counter Henry Ford, but also to provide various products for people at all economic levels. These internal GM brands were to compete against one another as well as outside companies. What Sloan did not realize is how this internal competition would impact the engineers who develop products and the marketing staff who have to sell them.

    Of course some of the problem had to do with the power and influence many of GM’s shareholders had over the board as well as the CEO. These shareholders wanted their cut and they wanted things done their way. For years, it all came down to satisfying the shareholders at the expense of GM’s long-term reputation. To this day, I know people who will not buy a GM product simply because they had a poorly made Pontiac back in 1983.

    Keep in mind, buying a car is a HUGE purchase for just about anyone. This cannot be compared to purchasing a ticket on a bankrupt airliner or buying a golf club from a defunct golf manufacturer. Americans today have long memories when it comes to vehicle purchases. Yet, these are the same Americans who demand instant gratification and who trample people at stores on Black Friday in order to save an extra $12.00 on a Chinese-made sweater.

    But my biggest complaint has to do with the wasting of great talent. There is a popular myth that American engineers are lazier or more stupid than their Asian and European counterparts. I highly disagree with this notion. There may well be different cultural values, but that does not define a worker’s skill set or determination. American engineers are simply more independent in their thinking than their Japanese and European counterparts. Independently-thinking renegades will create nothing but extra trouble for a platform design team.

    This is system that American engineers and designers are placed into once they graduate from college. It’s a cultural “machine” if you will. In Japan, Toyota’s engineers become “one” with the company and they simply work as one machine. There is no “I” in Toyota’s system – or in Japan’s industrial marketplace for that matter. Unfortunately, at GM people appeared to be hell-bent on receiving singular credit for their accomplishments.

    Please understand that the Japanese people are not a diverse bunch. They are known in the automotive industry for improving upon established ideas, designs and systems. The Japanese, however, are not known to create something from the ground up like their American counterparts. American engineers take more risks, since they want to be rewarded. The Japanese simply create and work for the common good of their employer.

    Toyota
    Toyota is a company that is known for its stubborn planning and ways. They take their time and do things right the first time. This is the Toyota way – most of the time.

    But this is not always the case. Toyota got derailed with their Avalon model. This car has been nothing but trouble from the drawing board to the production line. It is a piece of garbage.

    Why is it so bad? Maybe it is because this time they followed the flawed American model. Toyota rushed it because it saw the potential for a quick profit. They did not take their time to think things through. They simply used the American business model for a short-term gain and it failed them.

    In contrast, GM took its time to develop the new Malibu, and Ford used over 1100 engineers to develop the new F150. The Malibu is better than anything Toyota has right now. How do I know? I drive a Camry and I compared it to the Malibu.

    Interestingly enough, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz had personal input into the Malibu’s development. That is the MAJOR divergence from traditional platform development in the past. Engineers and designers received personal hands-on feedback from a car-guy at the top, not some bean counter. I am sure they felt invigorated to hear his thoughts from him rather than receiving them in a fluff letter typed by a secretary.

    Back to Michigan?
    Up until the late 90s, many in Michigan simply did not value a college education. Many were simply cushioned by the fact that they could graduate high school and get a job on the assembly line. I fear that this attitude towards college will grow in the southern states such as Mississippi and Alabama. Many down there are starting to have the “I’ll be fine” attitude that many in Michigan once had.

    But the future in Michigan may be brighter than many suppose. Southeast Michigan will remain a research and development powerhouse well into the future. Many of Detroit’s auto engineers and related companies can easily adapt (technically speaking) to alternative technologies such as wind, solar, and new materials. Never underestimate the amount of brainpower in Detroit. Prior to my stint in Detroit, I was under the impression that every Big Three employee was a lazy slouch. My ignorant attitude was squashed pretty damn quickly once I started working with them.

    So here’s a bright point for the future. You will see more technical industries branching off from the auto industry. Companies like Dow are already taking advantage of Metro Detroit’s diverse and increasingly well-educated Arab population. I see a future in Michigan revolving around chemicals, green energy, transportation and international trade in general.

    But the car industry won’t go away either. Toyota, for example, decided to keep its R&D operation in Michigan rather than relocate to Alabama. There was simply no incentive for Toyota to migrate its brainpower to the South. Right now – although this may change – the auto industry in the south is incomplete since they lack the planning and design processes needed.

    With or without a bailout, the Big Three as we have known them will not be the same. One or two could disappear. Others will no doubt shrink. But the intelligence that exists within the engineering and industrial talent of Michigan remains. This is what the country should look to save from extinction, not the mediocrities who have ruled from highest management.

    Amy Fritz was born in Cambridge, England during World War II. Her mother was a seamstress and her father a pilot with the RAF. Her uncles worked in various capacities within the British automobile industry and her father became an engineer and professor.

    After studying engineering at Cambridge, Fritz developed an interest in automobiles and went to work for a now defunct automotive supplier. Her occupation took her to Europe, Asia and North America, where she eventually settled as a technical engineering contractor for various auto-related companies. She is now semi-retired and living in the Denver area.

  • Is the U.S. Capitalist, Socialist or Something In-between?

    During the Presidential campaign, then-Democratic candidate Barack Obama inartfully described his proposed federal income tax cuts for the middle class as “sharing the wealth.” His more strident right-wing opponents – including Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin – almost immediately labeled Obama “a socialist,” adding to a litany of alleged infirmities as a presidential candidate that included lacking executive experience; being a closet Muslim; and “someone who pals around with terrorists.”

    Yet in reality Obama’s middle class tax proposal may have been the least “socialist” concept that has been floated and acted upon by a broad array of elected officials and senior-level appointees since four weeks before and four weeks after the Presidential election. This includes not only the huge federal financial bailout and taking of ownership of major investment and commercial banks – something embraced by the establishments of both political parties and the putative ‘capitalist’ business elites – but a series of other proposals, including the bailout of the Big Three American automakers, that are far more socialistic than a tax cut.

    Of course, effective campaigning, like good television advertising, tends to have at least two fundamental characteristics in common – oversimplification and hyperbole – so one might forgive or ignore the campaigns for taking liberties with such terms. Yet the ready and frequent use of the term “socialist” by a variety of sources does raise serious questions as to whether anyone out there really understands either capitalism or socialism as concepts or political constructs. This might help us know how much we should apply either label to the U.S. given the prevailing economic malady and the series of palliatives being offered up by the current and future Administrations, respectively.

    Socialism, of course, places primary ownership of the means of production in the hands of the state, or in some cases, corporate entities controlled by the state. In its extreme cases, such as in North Korea, this reality is absolute; in many other countries, state control is predominant and preeminent but pockets of private enterprise, usually small-scale and concentrated in agriculture or business services, still exist.

    Capitalism is a much more vague idea but essentially reverses priorities, putting the predominant role in the hands of private interests such as investors and corporations. State power in a capitalist country usually focuses on the creation of standards, public health, safety, and welfare, such things as regulating the currency, protecting the environment, and assuring the health of the populace.

    In contrast to the 19th Century, the US already operates on a much-diluted form of capitalism. Our markets are not free; they are highly regulated (and yet many would today argue they are not highly regulated enough). The exchange rates and values of our currency do not float freely but are heavily manipulated through federal government rate-setting activities. Investment decisions are not driven purely by return expectations or classic risk/reward analyses; rather they are incentivized or discouraged by a byzantine system of rewards and penalties affectionately known as the Internal Revenue Code. In other words, the federal government – under both Democrat and Republican Administrations and supported by both Houses of Congress – intervenes routinely in how markets operate and how capital is deployed. In this sense the federal tax code is fundamentally a mechanism for wealth redistribution, so candidate Obama’s statement about his proposed middle-class tax cut simply represented a shift to one set of priorities, much as the Bush Administration’s tax cuts represented another.

    If you accept the premise above that the U.S. already had one foot out the doorway between a more pure form of capitalism and socialism as it is widely practiced in other Westernized countries, it now appears that the U.S. is being pulled at warp speed through that doorway, as a consequence of the myriad plans (schemes would be a more accurate description, given how little thought appears to be devoted to them before rolling them out at press conference after press conference) for bailing out various classically capitalistic institutions.

    Bailing out a completely broken mortgage finance system that rewarded handsomely (some would say shamelessly) myriad private-sector entities and the mortgage industry represents a shift towards socialism. Providing over $100 billion in taxpayer support for AIG is socialism, not capitalism. Providing $200 billion of taxpayer support to prop up consumer credit, so that Americans can return to a false economy predicated upon unbridled, conspicuous consumption, is socialism not capitalism.

    The fact that these and other extraordinary moves by the federal government are undertaken in the name of saving our capitalistic economy and staving off a severe economic depression does not change the fact that we are experiencing – first under Bush and soon under Obama – a powerful drift towards extended state control of the economy. Free-wheeling and unfettered profit-making and corporate greed on the way up, backstopped by enormous government bailouts on the way down, represents in some ways the worst of both worlds .

    We now add to this series of attempts to solve our economic crisis the so-called “New, New Deal” proposed by President-elect Obama the week before Thanksgiving. Focused on fixing America’s infrastructure improvements, technological innovation, and education – as well as the creation of 2.5 million new jobs in the process – the New, New Deal basically supplants a failed, quasi-capitalistic economy with one that is driven primarily by government spending on government projects, in part for the purpose of creating new government jobs.

    There will be two silver linings if all of these government bail-out strategies and the implementation of Obama’s New, New Deal succeed: The U.S. could emerge from this economic abyss in which we find ourselves; and pass, at last, a comprehensive, universal healthcare reform that will not look nearly as socialistic as it may have appeared only six months ago.

    Yet there are some real dangers as well. A massive government program that extends more and more into every aspect of the economy could bring enormous inefficiencies as political decisions overtake market-based decision-making. It is not beyond the pale, for example, that banks may make loans to customers not based on their fundamental ability to pay but their ability to shift their risks to the government. Land use and other decisions once left to markets and localities could be placed in the hands of federal regulators, where the influence of well-connected developers and special interests (including such laudable causes as environmental protection) could be profound.

    Of course, this is a situation that could also change our national geography in profound ways. Parts of the country well-plugged into the new ruling party – the Northeast, coastal California, and most of all Chicago – could be huge beneficiaries. But the real winner, as I have argued before, may be the Nation’s Capital and its environs, whose power over the private economy would be greater than at any time since the Second World War.

    Of course, it may perhaps be both overly simplistic and somewhat hyperbolic to suggest that Washington, D.C. is morphing into “Pyongyang on the Potomac.” However, unless the federal rescue of our fundamentally capitalistic economy and society is not very carefully orchestrated, we may see greater similarities with another centrally planned economy – the one run from Paris. In that case, similarities between Paris and Washington, D.C. may extend well beyond the boulevarded street network and classical scale bestowed upon us by Pierre L’Enfant; we could also end up with something more akin to France’s centrally controlled dirigiste system than anyone could have expected.

    Peter Smirniotopoulos, Vice President – Development of UniDev, LLC, is based in the company’s headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland, and works throughout the U.S. He is on the faculty of the Masters in Science in Real Estate program at Johns Hopkins University. The views expressed herein are solely his own.

  • Auto Bailout: Help Mississippi, Not Michigan

    We should be getting used to the depressing spectacle of once-great corporations begging for assistance from Washington. Yet perhaps nothing is more painful than to see General Motors and other big U.S.-based car companies – once exemplars of both American economic supremacy and middle-class aspirations – fall to such an appalling state.

    Yet if GM represents all that is bad about the American economy, particularly manufacturing, it does not represent the breadth of our industrial landscape. Indeed, even as the dull-witted leviathan sinks, many nimble companies have shown remarkable resiliency.

    These include a series of small and mid-sized firms – in fields as diverse as garments and agricultural machinery, steel and energy equipment – that have managed to thrive in recent years. It also includes a growing contingent of foreign-owned firms, notably in the automobile industry, that have found that “Made in America” is not necessarily uncompetitive, unprofitable or impossible.

    Indeed, until the globalization of the financial crisis, American manufacturing exports were reaching record levels. Overall, U.S. industry has become among the most productive in the world – output has doubled over the past 25 years, and productivity has grown at a rate twice that of the rest of the economy. Far from dead, our manufacturing sector is the world’s largest, with 5% of the world’s population producing five times their share in industrial goods.

    So what is the problem then? If it is not the effort and ingenuity of American workers or our infrastructure, Detroit’s problems must lie somewhere else, largely with almost insanely bad management.

    We have to remember that the Big Three have been losing market share through even the best of times. Their litany of excuses is as tiresome as their product lines. Back in the 1970s it was “cheap” Japanese labor, something that can no longer be cited as an excuse. European car makers, if anything, have even higher wage costs.

    Then there is high gas prices – a good excuse, it appears, back in the 1970s, as well as more recently. But the Detroit auto industry has now had three decades to come up with fuel efficient products that are also fun to drive and reliable. While they have slumbered, the Japanese, Koreans and now the Europeans – with products like the new Volkswagen Jetta – have made enormous strides.

    Now it is the credit crunch, the car makers say. OK. Will increased credit mean that people will suddenly scoop up the same products they have been deserting in droves for decades? Keep in mind that the desertion could get even worse if the congressional greens – led by new Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman – impose stiffer taxes on gas, which will hurt the guzzlers that have generated most of Big Three profits.

    So why the push to bail out the Big Three? It’s basically about regional politics. The deindustrializing states of California and New York may not care much, but the big car companies’ operations are overwhelmingly concentrated in the politically volatile Great Lakes region, an area that proved decisive in President-elect Obama’s victory. Another big reason may be that up to 240,000 jobs in Illinois, the nation’s new political epicenter, are tied to the big automakers.

    Sadly, dependence on the Big Three has had long-term tragic results for this entire region. Between 2000 and 2007 – before the onset of the financial crisis – the nation’s largest percentage losses of manufacturing jobs were concentrated in Big Three bastions like Detroit, Warren-Farmington Hills, Saginaw, Flint and Cleveland. In the five years before the onset of the financial crisis, Michigan alone had lost one-third of its auto manufacturing jobs. Now that figure is up to half.

    Worse still has been the psychological dependency that has grown from this troubled relationship. By their very nature, declining businesses – particularly unionized ones – tend to protect their older members and encrusted bureaucracies more than they look to the future. This also creates a political environment where the incentive is not to spur innovation, but to protect the already established.

    Michigan, for example, has met the challenge of its Big Three habit with a combination of farce and failure. Under the clueless leadership of its governor, Jennifer Granholm, the state first hoped its “cool cities” program would keep young, educated workers close to home. After that failed to work, the governor then pushed the highest tax boost in state history, a reliable job-killer.

    So let us be clear. It did not take a world financial crisis to sink Michigan; it was getting there very well on its own. Nearly one in three residents, according to a July 2006 Detroit News poll, believe that Michigan is “a dying state.” Two in five of the state’s residents under 35 said they were seriously considering leaving the state.

    Fortunately, the Big Three do not represent the entire picture of American manufacturing. Even within the Great Lakes region, Wisconsin, which ranks second in per capita employment in manufacturing, has held onto most of its industrial employment due to its large, highly diversified base of smaller-scale specialized manufacturers.

    If Congress and President Obama want to figure out how to restart our industrial economy, they need to travel not to Detroit but to an alternative universe that includes the South and Appalachia, where most of the new foreign-owned auto manufacturers have clustered. States like Alabama, with the second-largest per capita concentration of auto-related jobs, as well as South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia and Mississippi, have been growing these high-wage jobs for a new generation. In the process, they have brought unprecedented opportunity to some of the nation’s historically poorest regions.

    Nor are these states looking to remain mere assembly centers. For example, they have launched bold new research initiatives, such as the recently formed International Automotive Research Center at Clemson University, which offers the nation’s only Ph.D. in automotive engineering, to make their region a major center of technological innovation for the industry. And the fact that the region will likely be producing the majority of the most low-mileage and low-emission cars certainly cannot hurt their future prospects.

    However, it is also critical to see beyond merely autos. If you look at the period between 2000 and 2007, as we did at the Praxis Strategy Group, much of the fastest growth in manufacturing was taking place in areas tied to energy production like Midland and Longview, Texas, and Morgantown, W.Va., all of which enjoyed 15% or more increases in manufacturing jobs. Already states like Arkansas, Alabama, Iowa and Mississippi boast more per capita industrial jobs than either Michigan or Ohio.

    Another strong performer has been the Great Plains. Places like Dubuque, Iowa, and Fargo and Grand Forks, N.D., experienced substantial growth in industrial jobs during the past decade. The base here, as in Wisconsin, is highly diverse and includes agricultural and construction equipment, electronics as well as a burgeoning sector in the renewable fuels sector, such as LM Glasfibre, a Danish firm with a large operation in Grand Forks. Washington state has been another bright spot, powered by Boeing and other manufacturers attracted to its low-cost, low-emission hydropower.

    If the country is serious about enhancing U.S. industrial might – as it should be – it might want to ask executives and entrepreneurs in these areas, as well as foreign investors, what they need to keep growing and expanding exports. There is clearly a demonstrated global market for Boeing airplanes and Caterpillar construction and agricultural machinery, as well as a host of high-tech and fashion-related products now being churned out in factories scattered across the country.

    The people running these firms should be those at the congressional hearings, not the pathetic losers from companies like General Motors. They might even have some helpful ideas, like streamlining regulations, investing in critical infrastructure and research facilities, expanding support for training a new generation of skilled blue collar workers and using incentives to encourage firms to improve their energy efficiency. These are the steps we can expect our competitors in Europe, Asia and the developing world to take as well.

    Rather than looking for ways to bail out the most egregious serial failures, let us find ways to provide incentives for those successful at creating new jobs and saving existing ones.

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.com.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History and is finishing a book on the American future.

  • Can Millennials Turn around the Housing Bust?

    Many of the nation’s youth (and a few of their elders) are expecting a magical turnaround of America’s economic fortunes as soon as their candidate for President, Barack Obama, is sworn in on January 20th 2009. But the Millennial Generation, born between 1982 and 2003, may be more the source of the country’s economic salvation as any initiative the new President might propose.

    Millennials are the largest generation in American history, more than 91 million strong. They are coming of age just in time to join the workforce, enter the housing market, stabilize home prices, and buy the nation’s expanding inventory of durable goods to furnish their new homes. Despite being burdened with student loan debt and graduating just when the job market is shrinking, this group of optimistic, civic-minded young Americans is ready to demonstrate that it is not only capable of electing a President, but also helping to resolve the country’s housing crisis.

    The “helicopter parents” of Millennials constantly hovered over their children as they grew up in order to protect them from anything that might harm their self-esteem. As a result, many older Americans, especially the 27 to 43 year old members of Generation X, think the Millennials’ “can do” attitude will crumble once they are confronted by the “realities of the real world.”

    But this ignores the cyclical nature of generational change. The GI Generation – the Millennial civic generation’s great-grandparents who came of age in the 1930s and 1940s – were raised in much the same way and acquired many of the same values cherished by Millennials. These members of what have come to be called “the Greatest Generation” were able to draw upon a deep reservoir of confidence and determination to lead America’s recovery from the Depression and later win the struggle against both fascism and communism.

    To give Millennials the same opportunity to rescue America, the new Obama administration should give the emerging generation the same attention in its policy initiatives that it expended getting their votes. Certainly the opportunity is there, particularly in rescuing the now devastated housing market.

    One unintended collateral benefit of the rapid drop in housing prices across the nation is to put many suburban homes within reach of first time home buyers, something that has not occurred for at least a decade. Even in pricey California, for example, the ratio between income and cost of housing has begun to drop dramatically, notes a recent paper by Chapman University graduate students Gil Yabes and Jason Goforth, with the ratio between income and mortgages dropping by one half or more in Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, close to pre-bubble levels.

    That’s a big opportunity, one that President-elect Obama’s “Home Ownership Initiative” should seize on. The Millennials could well be the demographic that could buy these more affordable homes and staunch the rise of foreclosures threatening the U.S. economy.

    It’s not that these young people don’t want to own homes. A 2004 study of students enrolled in a four-year university, a community college and an historically black college found that about the same 40-percent plurality in each group preferred to live in a “suburban community, single family home,” upon graduation. The second choice of these Millennials was to live in a “rural area, with large lots and open space.” Only about a quarter wanted to live in an “urban setting with mixed housing styles.” Luckily for them, five years later, their preferred housing stock has just become imminently more affordable.

    Now the Democratic Congress and President Obama should enact a significant tax credit incentive for first time homebuyers, many of whom would be Millennials. By rapidly expanding the universe of potential homebuyers, this program would help stabilize housing prices in the critical lower cost housing market. At the same time it would help stem foreclosures among existing homebuyers, whose loss of home equity has made abandoning mortgages more rational economically than keeping up payments.

    In 1934, during an earlier time of far greater economic pain, the Federal Housing Agency (FHA) was created to provide financing for a new type of mortgage requiring a lower down payment with the loan to be paid off over 25 or 30 years. The federal agency’s financing authority was greatly extended through Title II of the Housing Act of 1949, which provided federally guaranteed mortgage insurance and helped a flood of returning GIs own a home. Now it is time for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to be given the authority to finance a new mortgage structure for homebuyers under thirty.

    By lowering down payment requirements for this select group of home buyers to 10% and stretching the terms of mortgages to the number of years these young people are likely to be active in the workforce, forty, monthly payments on starter homes could be brought in line with the Millennials‘ ability to pay. Initially, this combination of tax credits and new types of mortgage financing would slow the decline in home prices that triggered the problems in the country’s financial markets. In the longer run, it will make sure that the benefits of widespread homeownership will expand to a new generation of Americans.

    One young Millennial to whom we talked recently was concerned that the hours her retail employer wanted her to work were being cut as holiday shopping continued to sour. She expressed concern that there was still “more than a month before Obama gets sworn in and everything turns around again.”

    Her statement exhibits the kind of economic naiveté that frustrates some older Americans, but does provide an important lesson – political as well as economic – for the incoming administration. The Millennial Generation, whose votes were key in nominating and then resoundingly electing President Obama, want to see things improve rapidly. After all, they lack either the experience or the equity that Baby Boomers have acquired over the years.

    Once in office, President Obama should embrace the impatience of America’s youth as one way to insure that his economic policies are enacted quickly. By making an explicit appeal to America’s largest generation’s desire for homeownership, he would not only take a big step toward ensuring the popularity of his economic program, but its effectiveness as well.

    Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais are fellows of NDN 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 New York Times 10 favorite books of 2008.

  • The Housing Bubble and the Boomer Generation

    Much of the commentary on the current economic crisis has focused on symptoms. Sub-prime mortgages, credit default swaps and the loosening of financial regulations are not the root cause of the financial crisis. They are symptoms of what has recently become a surprisingly widespread belief that individuals, families and even entire nations could live indefinitely beyond their means.

    The crisis has reminded everyone that, in the end, market fundamentals like supply and demand still matter and that ignoring traditional virtues like thrift and long-term planning can lead to grief. But what does this have to do with boomers?

    Ultimately, this economic crisis shines some light on some of the most important yet unresolved and paradoxical aspects of American culture as it developed in the wake of the economic, social and political upheavals of the late 1960s and early 1970s.

    Children coming of age in the 1950s and 1960s were born into families that, on average, enjoyed the greatest material prosperity and the best housing the world had ever known. The security offered by an enormously expanded and comfortable middle class allowed these children to crusade on behalf of various causes. Those who called themselves “progressive” pushed to expand individual civil rights, sometimes at the expense of what others perceived as community rights or duties, but at the same time they were often deeply suspicious of capitalism and markets and for this reason pushed to restrict the rights of private property owners in order to expand on their own notions of community rights.

    The result was, on the one hand, a massive effort to empower racial and ethnic minorities, women, gay people and many others. This aspect of the revolutions of the 1960s era has always been highly controversial, with conservatives fighting the “reforms” every step of the way. On the other hand, starting about 1970, there was an explosion in regulations on the use of land including tighter zoning and building codes, regulations governing environmental matters, historic preservation and land conservation, growth and building caps and growth management schemes. It became harder to build at the urban edge because of the environmental rules and efforts to limit “sprawl.” It also became harder to build at the center because of substantial down-zoning and other regulations to “preserve neighborhood character,” particularly in affluent neighborhoods. This aspect of the 1960s progressive agenda has led to grumbling about NIMBYism but has otherwise generated surprisingly little negative commentary.

    Nevertheless, this movement has created one of the most paradoxical legacies of the 1960s as programs justified in the language and logic of “rights,” have turned into bulwarks for the status quo and a mechanism to transfer wealth from younger families of modest income to more affluent older families.

    In the 1950s and 1960s developers in America built a huge amount of housing, primarily on cheap land at the suburban edge of almost every city in the country. This housing was remarkably inexpensive and, together with liberal financing terms, allowed millions of Americans to enter into the ranks of home ownership and the middle class. It provided the underpinnings for the enormous wealth of the boomer generation.

    Starting in the 1970s, though, particularly in some of the most desirable markets in the country, the same people who most benefited from the developments of the early postwar years turned against those development practices. They advocated regulations for many things that most people, then as now, would agree were desirable – conserving scenic areas and wetlands, protecting coastlines and animal habitats and preserving open space, historic buildings and neighborhood character.

    Yet the net effect of all of these regulations was to limit severely the supply of land for urban uses. Even more important, existing homeowners, what I have elsewhere called the “Incumbents’ Club,” created a political system that allowed them to dictate how much growth and what kind of growth would be permitted in their cities.

    This shift of decision-making about development from private developers and individual property owners to public planning bodies, almost always controlled by homeowners, was hailed by many observers as a triumph of democratic process. The community rather than the developers, so this line of thinking went, would henceforth dictate the growth of the community. The problem with this equation was that it failed to consider who was speaking for the community and whose voices were not heard or to calculate the costs and benefits of these policies.

    For existing homeowners in affluent communities like Boulder Colorado, or Nantucket Island or San Francisco, this regulatory rush turned existing land ownership into pure gold. By limiting the supply of land for development and driving up the costs of development where the land was available, it pushed up the perceived value of all houses, including their own.

    Take the case of the Bay Area, where land prices were on par with urban areas elsewhere in the country up until 1970. Then, as the area pioneered in land use regulations of every kind, house prices started a steep climb. Where the rule of thumb had long been that the average American family in any given urban market would expect to pay about three times its annual salary for an average house, by the early years of the 21st century it had reached the point where that average house in the Bay Area would be the equivalent of ten, eleven or even twelve years of the average family’s income. At the same time, however, in lightly regulated urban areas, even extremely dynamic ones like those of Atlanta, Houston or Phoenix, house prices registered no comparable rise against incomes.

    Nor was this all. There was at the same time an increasing movement around the country to push the cost of what had been considered public goods, like new roads, street lights, sidewalks and sewers, even parks and schools, onto the developers who then passed these costs on to the eventual buyers. As a result, existing owners who enjoyed infrastructure paid for by previous generations no longer had to pay for the infrastructure of their children’s and grandchildren’s generation.

    Finally, this elaborate edifice of protection of the interests of existing landowners was capped by a series of tax revolts starting in the 1970s, particularly Proposition 13 in California. This made it possible for members of the incumbent’s club to enjoy the benefits of rapidly escalating house prices without paying a corresponding share of the property taxes that financed most municipal services.

    These land use regulations and real estate tax policies have made possible, at least in certain highly regulated markets, one of the greatest transfers of wealth in American history. The primary beneficiaries have been existing landowners including a very large percentage of affluent boomers. The ones who have paid have been less affluent renters, younger people and all future generations of prospective homeowners.

    The existing homeowner in the Bay Area could watch the value of his house soar from a few hundred thousand dollars up into the millions without lifting a finger. Meanwhile the dramatic rise in land prices, because it has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in salaries, has devastated the prospects of young couples, many of whom were forced to either leave the area or obliged to take on huge mortgage debt just to afford an entry level house. These same people are now bearing the brunt of the steep decline in housing prices and the wave of foreclosures washing over the country.

    One of the most remarkable things about this enormous transfer of wealth has been how little most people were aware that it was happening or what caused it. A few people – notably Bernard J. Frieden in his book The Environmental Hustle from 1979 – had sounded the alarm. More recently Wendell Cox and Hugh Pavletich at Demographia.com have made a similar case using substantial data from cities in the English speaking world. Although all of these observers have been dismissed as free market enthusiasts, more mainstream commentators – like Edward Glaeser of Harvard and Joseph Gyourko of the University of Pennsylvania – have embraced this theme. Even the noted liberal economist Paul Krugman has joined the chorus, comparing the moderate land prices in the “flatlands,” meaning lightly regulated places like Texas, with the extremely high prices in the “zoned zone” or places like heavily regulated coastal California.

    This leads us to the great challenge we face now keeping families in their homes. The sad truth is that in areas where housing prices have vastly outstripped incomes there may no easy way to do this. In many markets either housing prices will need to fall quite a bit further or income will have to rise substantially, and there is little likelihood – particularly with this weak economy – of the latter happening any time in the near future.

    One good thing that might come out of the current crisis, though, is a recognition that regulations, however well-intentioned, can come at a price, sometimes a high one, for some parts of society. I doubt very much that the boomer generation ever intended to create the current housing bubble or enrich itself at the expense of less affluent families and generations to come. This was the unanticipated consequence of a genuine desire to create a better life for everyone by individuals who, probably inevitably, defined the good life as the kind of life they themselves wanted. In many ways they succeeded all too well. We can only hope this downturn will at least open up a new chapter in the discussion of the bittersweet story of a generation that set out to remake the world.

    Robert Bruegmann is a professor of Art History, Architecture and Urban Planning at the University of Illinois at Chicago. His most recent book, Sprawl: A Compact History, published by the University of Chicago Press in 2005, has generated a great deal of discussion worldwide.

  • Where is the financial bailout money going?

    So far the Treasury Department has spread out $241 billion to AIG and 124 banks in mostly coastal states and Ohio and Indiana. Check out ProPublica’s frequently updated map of financial bailout recipients. ProPublica is monitoring the bailout and offers an RSS feed and a bailout widget to keep tabs on where the money is going.

    Here’s some other financial crisis visuals:

    Visual Guide to the Financial Crisis
    A map at GEOCommons of the Wachovia takeover by Wells Fargo
    Our GeoCommons Map of states dependent on the securities, commodities and investments industries

  • Architecture in an Age of Austerity

    “Architectural publication, criticism and even education are now focused relentlessly on the enticing visual image. The longing for singular, memorable imagery subordinates other aspects of buildings, isolating architecture in disembodied vision.” – Finnish architect Juhani Pallasmaa, from his essay “Toward an Architecture of Humility”

    Anyone paying even remote attention to the domain of high architectural design in the past decade will surely recognize the name Frank Gehry. The celebrity architect (or if you prefer to use the portmanteau word used to describe such practitioners: starchitect) is best known for his unconventional creations-buildings that billow, swoop and shimmer. Whether the project is a concert hall, museum, or university building, the clientele hiring Gehry is paying for a brand name product. In this sense, a ‘Gehry-designed building’ is akin to a piece of fashion – with the value of the building based primarily on the name of the designer and not on how well it operates for end users as a work of architecture.

    Gehry was not alone in this respect. Real estate developers were quick to jump on the trend toward ‘signature’ buildings. Hiring other marquee architects such as Zaha Hadid, Daniel Libeskind, and Santiago Calatrava, high-end condo developers everywhere from Manhattan to Dubai were willing to deal with paying exorbitant design fees for the assumed marketing advantages of associating with such big names.

    But now the obsession with starchitecture may now itself be outdated. Thanks to the financial meltdown, the party may be ending both for starchitects and their credit wielding developer patrons. Not surprisingly, ambitious projects like the Gehry designed Grand Avenue development in Los Angeles and the Calatrava designed Chicago Spire have been put on hold and perhaps consigned to oblivion.

    These are just some of the most visible examples of the construction slowdown as it relates to high architectural design. Less renown figures in the architectural profession, both sole practitioners and those working in corporate firms, also find themselves struggling to retain projects. The imagined career trajectories of wannabe starchitects may be yet another casualty of the financial slowdown.

    Ironically, the economic crisis relates back to the very thing architects are entrusted with – the built environment. Of course, architects had a hand in only a very small percentage of what is actually built in the United States. During the most recent boom cycle of construction – at least until the last year or two – the single family detached housing developments in the suburbs and urban fringes dominated the market. These developments were often promoted in a manner that made the house as an investment vehicle paramount to it being a place of long-term inhabitance and raising a family.

    The subprime mortgage crisis has since debunked the commonly accepted strategy that real estate is always a ‘safe’ investment for the average American. But this is not only a suburban phenomenon, despite the claims by many in the architecture and urban planning professions that the real estate meltdown represented the triumph of the city over the suburbs. In reality the city development scene is also collapsing, a bit later perhaps, but largely because it took a while for the financial fallout to reach large urban projects.

    Ironically the starchitecture so celebrated by the popular media may have contributed to this. The fact that the majority of architecturally revered high-rise housing developments built in the past decade are geared toward the ‘luxury market’ may have slowed the potential market for in-city living. In too many cases, developers in the urban luxury condo market have relied on cash-wealthy individuals to purchase their units as second homes, a market that is certain to crash as the asset bubble bursts.

    The current recession is a trying time for most Americans, and as such, it could prove a pivotal time for architects, planners and those who care about the built environment to reassess their roles in a democratic culture. Great or monumental architecture – from imperial Rome to Napoleon III’s Paris and Dubai today – has often been built at the discretion of powerful religious institutions, monarchies or omnipotent dictatorships. Democratic architecture, in contrast, tends more to the functional and efficient, whether in the form of William Levitt’s suburbia or the high-rise towers that accommodated corporations.

    The future of urban development in the United States is likely to follow a different trajectory. For one thing environmental sustainability is likely to frame the decisions made in regards to urban planning in the coming years. In this context, metallic structures like those favored by Gehry and his acolytes do not represent a very energy-efficient form; in places like Los Angeles, Phoenix or Dubai they reflect sunlight and heat up the surrounding environment. The next era of American architecture will have to deal with such issues and also with the restrictions of a strapped fiscal environment.

    With funding for flashy and iconic buildings screeching to a halt, the era of the architect as detached genius and artiste appears to be coming to a close. In order to retain relevance at this crucial point in time, architects would be wise to come out from their ivory towers and shift their focus to becoming more civically engaged and oriented towards the needs of the middle class.

    At the dawn of the 21st Century, as the definitions of traditional urban centers, suburbs and metropolitan regions become more blurred, so does the role of the architect and planner. After the chaos of the current economic recession is settled, most construction is likely to be focused on updating existing infrastructure and building new ‘green’ infrastructure. What America needs most right now from the architectural profession is not more Frank Gehrys but a new commitment to build an environment that is both sustainable and affordable.

    Adam Nathaniel Mayer is a native of the San Francisco Bay Area. Raised in the town of Los Gatos, on the edge of Silicon Valley, Adam developed a keen interest in the importance of place within the framework of a highly globalized economy. He currently lives in San Francisco where he works in the architecture profession.

  • Bailout or Just in Time Delivery?

    Toyota is careful in its ways; it didn’t get where it is today by idly locating manufacturing plants. And, so it chose Georgetown, Ky. – 12 miles north of Lexington on I-75 – for the location of its first and largest U.S. plant. It was followed in the ensuing years by numerous other foreign auto plants locating in the South – BMW, Mercedes, Saturn, Hyundai and yet another Toyota (in Mississippi).

    Why, you may ask, did they come to the South? The easy answer is that they came for cheaper land and labor. They were also drawn by large and much criticized tax incentive packages as the South decided – value judgments aside – to get in the game and establish a manufacturing base to replace the sagging agriculturally based small farm economy. Here in Kentucky, the less than bright future for tobacco was ample motivation for welcoming Toyota.

    But I believe there is more to this move. They came also for laborers eager to find the good paying auto jobs that had escaped the South for too long. The influx reversed a trend of Southerners leaving for the great factories of the North as my father did 60 years ago as he fled Appalachian Kentucky for Dayton, Ohio.

    Also, contrary to East Coast “attitudes” they came for another reason – the work ethic common to this region. In Kentucky workers from 116 of its 120 counties were hired when Toyota began operations – 7,000 strong. They wanted to work, and were willing to move, commute, or hitchhike for the opportunities. Just as importantly, Toyota created a new employment strategy of hiring a “cushion” of temporary employees to insulate full-time employees from the impact of an eventual economic downturn.

    This image contrasts that of Southerners – particularly those in Appalachia – as generally lazy, fat, dumb, happy, pregnant, barefoot, toothless, racist, sexist or any combination thereof. Speaking of lazy, we can thank Gary Tuchman and CNN for the latest contribution to stereotyping our Commonwealth when they chose to find poor sad people on a front porch in Clay County Ky., to enunciate in butchered English their discouragement with the state of the world.

    So when we hear about the bailouts, first for the financial industry and now the Detroit-based U.S. auto industry, we have reason for skepticism. Our auto industry – that is the generally healthy industry created by Japanese, Korean and German manufacturers – doesn’t seem on the bailout list. Neither do our local banks. They’re not too big to fail and not stupid enough to follow the lead of Wall Street.

    Of course, we don’t want to see any part of America fail, including Detroit. According to one Toyota executive, the webbing of the auto industry is so intertwined that the failure of the U.S. auto industry would bring down the entire house of cards, including the supplier plants that Toyota and other “new age” manufacturing plants call “just in time delivery” facilities.

    But others do see the bailout as undermining a trend that favors efficiency in manufacturing – and the wise investment Toyota and other companies have made in developing smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. Still others are baffled about what they would do if it was their congressional vote. The global economy has grown complex in many ways. Among the most vexing issues are those surrounding present and future government involvement in private companies.

    Ultimately we wonder what the attitude of the new administration will be toward Kentucky and the South. Kentucky in particular stood out once again with early poll closings, to be declared “red,” by a large percentage as it went to McCain. Obama tiptoed only once into the state, and that was in “blue” Louisville. He made no effort to win us over as Kennedy and Clinton had in earlier presidential campaigns. We will soon learn if he remains true to his rhetoric that proclaims that we are neither “red” nor “blue” but one America.

    There’s much our new President could do for this part of the world. The mega car factories might show what our workforce is capable of but they have not been enough to reverse our relatively low per capita incomes. New investments – roads, waterways, freight rail lines, skills training – could help lift our region up even further. We just hope that the new President realizes that all of America will benefit if the South can build on its automotive industry success to achieve a much broader prosperity.

    Sylvia L. Lovely is the Executive Director/CEO of the Kentucky League of Cities and the founder and president of the NewCities Institute. She currently serves as chair of the Morehead State University Board of Regents. Please send your comments to slovely@klc.org and visit her blog at sylvia.newcities.org.