The best way is to have a good, growing economy and low cost of living.  Ohio is working on both, as it's already relatively low cost, despite popular belief, and the economy continues to improve, having the 2nd fastest job growth of any state in May.

 

This is actually untrue. I was born and raised in the south, and for years old-school deep south (aka backwards) states like Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, etc. have been trying to figure out how to have the economic growth that exists in other states like North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, etc. Obviously there's a different recipe for each success story, but low costs was only a marginal factor in TN and virtually negligible in NC and especially TX. Cost of living is actually very high in Dallas, for example, whereas Dallas (Houston being "Oil Capital of the World") is clearly the business capital of Texas, in a diversified sense. I know many of you yankee urbanists like to snicker at the big projects in Dallas, but the reality is that you could be dropped in Dallas and honestly swear you were in Chicago and be confused why so many TX license plates everywhere. Dallas has grown up, and it's become an completely enclosed, gentrified (or ghettofied) city.

 

Economics are, by far, the biggest reason people move.  Either for a job, retirement, etc.  This simply cannot be overstated.  The perception has long been that the South offered a low cost of living, but also a low cost to do business.  Attract people, you attract jobs and vice versa.  And every cost of living assessment I've seen has states like Texas and NC toward the bottom of costs.  Ohio tends to be in the middle on most of these, but if you do a direct comparison, Ohio is on par with most things, and much cheaper on others, like real estate.

 

The secret has and always will be young people - education, and then retaining those graduates produced by the education system. TX reinvested a lot of its oil profits in the 70s into making UT and A&M world-class research institutions. NC just did it without a massive cash influx to begin with, by prioritizing UNC and NCST over anything else. TN's main growth driver is the Nashville area, which is a mecca for research, with Vandy, medical schools, national research center in one of the southern suburbs, etc. Outside of Nashville, TN has benefited from low costs and especially a lack of union workers, as companies like Nissan and Toyota have demonstrated a strong preference to avoid union regions in establishing new manufacturing centers. Unfortunately.

 

Young people are key, I agree, but you still need cost and jobs to attract them.  I think you are overstating to some degree what singular institutions really accomplish in terms of long-term growth trends in a state.  I'm sure places like Austin are helped by this, in the same way that Columbus is, but on a statewide scale, I don't think it matters nearly as much as being able to provide good-paying jobs for the graduates, no matter where they graduate from.  Also, I disagree that unions are necessarily holding back Ohio vs other states.  The state residents recently rejected legislation meant to curb union power, and since then Ohio's unemployment rate has dropped 10 straight months and has had the first or second most jobs gained by any state for a couple months already this year alone, including in May.  A significant part of these gains was in manufacturing, particularly related to the auto industry.  The unemployment rate is also almost a percentage point below the national average, one of the largest spreads in decades.  The state is recovering well economically.  Certainly moreso than places like NC, which continue to struggle with jobs and too many people moving there expecting the good times to come back at any moment.   

 

Education is always the most important factor, and having a highly-qualified (and public health is also a factor, being healthy) workforce. It's all about human capital that sets states apart, very little has anything to do with costs. Having low costs will attract non-union manufacturing (which is still good), call centers, Indian casinos, and low-skill service jobs - this is absolutely not a basis for economic growth. No Fortune 500 companies, R&D companies, innovative tech startups, or anything that can add skilled labor opportunities to your economy, are looking for cheap. They are looking for quality places to locate over cheap places. States trumpeting their low costs over their education and quality of life are actively repelling good jobs, as a matter of fact. That's all my home state does and they will never figure out why it doesn't work and why the economy is still 100% tied to oil despite other states like Texas successfully diversifying.

 

Again, retaining graduates is important, but the only way to do that is to have jobs available in their fields.  An educated workforce doesn't do any good if you have no companies to work for.  And Ohio's not exactly at the bottom of the education heap, either, so I don't think the problem is that Ohio doesn't have enough college grads.  And what's most interesting is that the South, including Texas and NC, have some of the lowest rates of job mobility in the nation, meaning that it's much harder to move up the ladder and gain success in these states vs Ohio.  Most people seem to have no idea about that. 

 

Then it comes down to an absolute truism when it comes to economic development. Conservatives craft nothing but dangerous, regressive, backward policies and trumpet them as business-friendly. There is a reason that the most economically prosperous places are usually the most progressive (different from "liberal") in their region - NC and VA are a perfect example of how a state that turned progressive left its Dixie neighbors behind in the dust. If you compare the economic benefits of MS to MN, you'll see a very high-cost yet progressive state up against a very low-cost yet regressive state. If you are an R&D company that employs 200 people, but has a major ripple effect in the economy due to your innovations (in other words YOU are the ED cash cow every state is dreaming about), which state are you going to locate in - MS or MN?

 

I would argue that Ohio is far more progressive politically than any of the Southern states.  The largest private research foundation in the entire world is in Columbus, and Cleveland has nationally recognized innovative health facilities.  It's not like Ohio lacks in the creative.  It's just been that the state has seen 30 years of decline because of too much emphasis on too few industries, not to mention being at the butt end of the suburbia movement.  Those things are no longer reality, so it remains to be seen if Ohio can continue its momentum and become a state people associate with success instead of burning rivers and industrial rot.

 

I wanted to revisit this post because I didn't get a chance to respond. This is accurate economic development thinking... for 1990. You do however allude to what you're missing, which is the creative economy. Richard Florida has written the book on that, and he's taken exception with a lot of conservative AND liberal economists. I once saw Florida speak in a speaker's series we had in OKC a while ago, where he confirmed something we recognized in the 90s which is that while jobs are an important component of ED, that's more of an end result, rather than a means to an end.

 

You won't attract jobs if you have a low quality of life (QoL) because jobs are very chicken v. egg, people  don't just go to jobs, but jobs go to people. Any good ED strategy must begin and end with QoL because above all you want people to take the job in your community, rather than the job elsewhere, because for qualified and skilled labor there are (or should be) abundant job opportunities everywhere. In addition to this, technology and C2C conferencing technology has exacerbated the reality that the creative class (which will be THE key to growth) can work wherever they want, and they don't even have to live where they work.

 

This gets me to probably the most important point that anyone in this thread could possibly make. What is the goal here? Is it to have economic growth or is it to create a high QoL for Ohio residents? What is the point of ED if it doesn't = QoL? In so many European countries they have a high QoL but their population is not growing, despite economic growth (although obviously no economic growth right now due to Austrian-style austerity). I think it's very possible that if you focus on education and QoL, promoting innovation, that you can make Ohio a better place that young people would at least be unlikely to leave. Growth actually leads to more problems, ie., sprawl, infrastructure, etc., that you can avoid as long as you aren't sliding backwards and losing jobs. Unfortunately, Ohio may not be able to avoid population growth if it is enhancing QoL and promoting innovation...

Anywhere that is having an oil boom is probably not a long-term model for sustainable economic growth.

Unless you are having a natural gas boom, which is Kasich's modus operandi.

 

Depends.  If we really have as much as they think we do, it'll cover 2 or 3 generations of people.  That should help us get back on our feet, whichever way we end up going.

 

How so? Nat gas is worthless, and the price is showing no signs of making a comeback. Look at the Chesapeake fiasco..

 

The 'Chesapeake fiasco' has nothing to do with natural gas being 'worthless'

This gets me to probably the most important point that anyone in this thread could possibly make. What is the goal here? Is it to have economic growth or is it to create a high QoL for Ohio residents? What is the point of ED if it doesn't = QoL? In so many European countries they have a high QoL but their population is not growing, despite economic growth (although obviously no economic growth right now due to Austrian-style austerity). I think it's very possible that if you focus on education and QoL, promoting innovation, that you can make Ohio a better place that young people would at least be unlikely to leave. Growth actually leads to more problems, ie., sprawl, infrastructure, etc., that you can avoid as long as you aren't sliding backwards and losing jobs. Unfortunately, Ohio may not be able to avoid population growth if it is enhancing QoL and promoting innovation...

 

Very good point, although I wouldn't mind Ohio attracting some immigrants.  We do have some areas, particularly urban ones, that have infrastructure for a lot more people than currently live there.  It's not easy for smaller populations in these places to maintain such systems, nor is it easy to just remove them as Youngstown is doing.  Sprawl issues aside, I think adding some new population would help advance Ohio's QoL.  There is a limit to that of course.  And it doesn't mean we shouldn't work on QoL immediately, because you're right, that's our deficiency and that's where we stand to make the most progress.

Anywhere that is having an oil boom is probably not a long-term model for sustainable economic growth.

Unless you are having a natural gas boom, which is Kasich's modus operandi.

 

Depends.  If we really have as much as they think we do, it'll cover 2 or 3 generations of people.  That should help us get back on our feet, whichever way we end up going.

 

How so? Nat gas is worthless, and the price is showing no signs of making a comeback. Look at the Chesapeake fiasco..

 

The 'Chesapeake fiasco' has nothing to do with natural gas being 'worthless'

 

It has a lot more than analysts admit. CHK set out on its growth and expansion plan when nat gas considerably higher, and now it has tanked in the last 1-2 years as oil rose and has stayed decently high. There is no reason for nat gas and crude to move in opposite directions. As for CHK's fiasco, that's a company where if share holders are making money, they overlook all the things they did for sooo long. Here's an example of that logic: "Everybody knew in 2008 Aubrey was America's highest-paid CEO, big deal?" However, when Aubrey momentarily stops making share holders tons of money, they're looking to go on a mutiny all of a sudden. Crazy.

The best way is to have a good, growing economy and low cost of living.  Ohio is working on both, as it's already relatively low cost, despite popular belief, and the economy continues to improve, having the 2nd fastest job growth of any state in May.

 

This is actually untrue. I was born and raised in the south, and for years old-school deep south (aka backwards) states like Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, etc. have been trying to figure out how to have the economic growth that exists in other states like North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, etc. Obviously there's a different recipe for each success story, but low costs was only a marginal factor in TN and virtually negligible in NC and especially TX. Cost of living is actually very high in Dallas, for example, whereas Dallas (Houston being "Oil Capital of the World") is clearly the business capital of Texas, in a diversified sense. I know many of you yankee urbanists like to snicker at the big projects in Dallas, but the reality is that you could be dropped in Dallas and honestly swear you were in Chicago and be confused why so many TX license plates everywhere. Dallas has grown up, and it's become an completely enclosed, gentrified (or ghettofied) city.

 

Economics are, by far, the biggest reason people move.  Either for a job, retirement, etc.  This simply cannot be overstated.  The perception has long been that the South offered a low cost of living, but also a low cost to do business.  Attract people, you attract jobs and vice versa.  And every cost of living assessment I've seen has states like Texas and NC toward the bottom of costs.  Ohio tends to be in the middle on most of these, but if you do a direct comparison, Ohio is on par with most things, and much cheaper on others, like real estate.

 

The secret has and always will be young people - education, and then retaining those graduates produced by the education system. TX reinvested a lot of its oil profits in the 70s into making UT and A&M world-class research institutions. NC just did it without a massive cash influx to begin with, by prioritizing UNC and NCST over anything else. TN's main growth driver is the Nashville area, which is a mecca for research, with Vandy, medical schools, national research center in one of the southern suburbs, etc. Outside of Nashville, TN has benefited from low costs and especially a lack of union workers, as companies like Nissan and Toyota have demonstrated a strong preference to avoid union regions in establishing new manufacturing centers. Unfortunately.

 

Young people are key, I agree, but you still need cost and jobs to attract them.  I think you are overstating to some degree what singular institutions really accomplish in terms of long-term growth trends in a state.  I'm sure places like Austin are helped by this, in the same way that Columbus is, but on a statewide scale, I don't think it matters nearly as much as being able to provide good-paying jobs for the graduates, no matter where they graduate from.  Also, I disagree that unions are necessarily holding back Ohio vs other states.  The state residents recently rejected legislation meant to curb union power, and since then Ohio's unemployment rate has dropped 10 straight months and has had the first or second most jobs gained by any state for a couple months already this year alone, including in May.  A significant part of these gains was in manufacturing, particularly related to the auto industry.  The unemployment rate is also almost a percentage point below the national average, one of the largest spreads in decades.  The state is recovering well economically.  Certainly moreso than places like NC, which continue to struggle with jobs and too many people moving there expecting the good times to come back at any moment.   

 

Education is always the most important factor, and having a highly-qualified (and public health is also a factor, being healthy) workforce. It's all about human capital that sets states apart, very little has anything to do with costs. Having low costs will attract non-union manufacturing (which is still good), call centers, Indian casinos, and low-skill service jobs - this is absolutely not a basis for economic growth. No Fortune 500 companies, R&D companies, innovative tech startups, or anything that can add skilled labor opportunities to your economy, are looking for cheap. They are looking for quality places to locate over cheap places. States trumpeting their low costs over their education and quality of life are actively repelling good jobs, as a matter of fact. That's all my home state does and they will never figure out why it doesn't work and why the economy is still 100% tied to oil despite other states like Texas successfully diversifying.

 

Again, retaining graduates is important, but the only way to do that is to have jobs available in their fields.  An educated workforce doesn't do any good if you have no companies to work for.  And Ohio's not exactly at the bottom of the education heap, either, so I don't think the problem is that Ohio doesn't have enough college grads.  And what's most interesting is that the South, including Texas and NC, have some of the lowest rates of job mobility in the nation, meaning that it's much harder to move up the ladder and gain success in these states vs Ohio.  Most people seem to have no idea about that. 

 

Then it comes down to an absolute truism when it comes to economic development. Conservatives craft nothing but dangerous, regressive, backward policies and trumpet them as business-friendly. There is a reason that the most economically prosperous places are usually the most progressive (different from "liberal") in their region - NC and VA are a perfect example of how a state that turned progressive left its Dixie neighbors behind in the dust. If you compare the economic benefits of MS to MN, you'll see a very high-cost yet progressive state up against a very low-cost yet regressive state. If you are an R&D company that employs 200 people, but has a major ripple effect in the economy due to your innovations (in other words YOU are the ED cash cow every state is dreaming about), which state are you going to locate in - MS or MN?

 

I would argue that Ohio is far more progressive politically than any of the Southern states.  The largest private research foundation in the entire world is in Columbus, and Cleveland has nationally recognized innovative health facilities.  It's not like Ohio lacks in the creative.  It's just been that the state has seen 30 years of decline because of too much emphasis on too few industries, not to mention being at the butt end of the suburbia movement.  Those things are no longer reality, so it remains to be seen if Ohio can continue its momentum and become a state people associate with success instead of burning rivers and industrial rot.

 

I wanted to revisit this post because I didn't get a chance to respond. This is accurate economic development thinking... for 1990. You do however allude to what you're missing, which is the creative economy. Richard Florida has written the book on that, and he's taken exception with a lot of conservative AND liberal economists. I once saw Florida speak in a speaker's series we had in OKC a while ago, where he confirmed something we recognized in the 90s which is that while jobs are an important component of ED, that's more of an end result, rather than a means to an end.

 

You won't attract jobs if you have a low quality of life (QoL) because jobs are very chicken v. egg, people  don't just go to jobs, but jobs go to people. Any good ED strategy must begin and end with QoL because above all you want people to take the job in your community, rather than the job elsewhere, because for qualified and skilled labor there are (or should be) abundant job opportunities everywhere. In addition to this, technology and C2C conferencing technology has exacerbated the reality that the creative class (which will be THE key to growth) can work wherever they want, and they don't even have to live where they work.

 

This gets me to probably the most important point that anyone in this thread could possibly make. What is the goal here? Is it to have economic growth or is it to create a high QoL for Ohio residents? What is the point of ED if it doesn't = QoL? In so many European countries they have a high QoL but their population is not growing, despite economic growth (although obviously no economic growth right now due to Austrian-style austerity). I think it's very possible that if you focus on education and QoL, promoting innovation, that you can make Ohio a better place that young people would at least be unlikely to leave. Growth actually leads to more problems, ie., sprawl, infrastructure, etc., that you can avoid as long as you aren't sliding backwards and losing jobs. Unfortunately, Ohio may not be able to avoid population growth if it is enhancing QoL and promoting innovation...

 

What exactly indicates that Ohio lacks in terms of QoL? 

There is no reason for nat gas and crude to move in opposite directions.

 

There is, to the extent that they have different uses.  Demand for transportation fuel didn't decrease due to the mild winter but demand for heating did.  Also, they're finding more gas than oil in these plays, so the supply of gas is rising faster.  One thing they're trying to do, McClendon or otherwise, is to build new markets for gas.  It makes sense now to shift from coal to gas power plants, although the coal lobby might have something to say about that.  As such I do think it's time for him to step aside.  His value as a face of the industry has been greatly diminished, and Ohio has a lot riding on that industry now.  Cheap and clean local energy is a major boon to industrial development, i.e. jobs.

 

What exactly indicates that Ohio lacks in terms of QoL? 

 

With something as subjective as QoL there could be a lot of indicators, positive or negative, depending on what you value personally.

 

The question "is there high QoL in Ohio?" (Yes!) is a lot different from "how can we improve QoL in Ohio?"

 

For me living in Cleveland, addressing blight (aesthetics) is a major concern. I feel like we can only go so far until we can somehow improve the large swath of neglected areas surrounding our vibrant, attractive neighborhoods. 

Anywhere that is having an oil boom is probably not a long-term model for sustainable economic growth.

Unless you are having a natural gas boom, which is Kasich's modus operandi.

 

Ohio  needs to invest its natural gas boom back into education

What exactly indicates that Ohio lacks in terms of QoL? 

Great point, jbcmh81.

I live in the Chagrin Valley and I think I am living in a dream.  This place is beautiful, low stress and has lots of things to do.

If the idea is to bring in additional people, a goal I think the thread title presumes, then benchmarks and comparisons start to matter more.  At that point you're competing with pretty much everywhere.  If we want to grow, we can't have any glaring deficiencies that people can avoid by avoiding Ohio.  From what I've seen, most states keep up their downtowns and their neighborhood commercial districts a lot better than we do.  Yes we have malls & such, but so do they, and they manage to keep old storefronts open too.

 

They also have a lot less traffic patrols.  Someone from elsewhere logged in here just to point that out, last week.  Predatory cops all over the roads is a QoL issue to many people.  One may not agree with this sentiment, but at least recognize that a lot of people do, and that the situation here is objectively not normal.  It's like Dukes of Hazzard.  There is a cost involved in treating people this way.

 

We can't be behind the curve anymore.  Casinos should have happened years ago, we're still waiting on intercity rail, and our social policies are ancient and backward.  Ohio stopped being a leader after locking itself in the steampunk era.  We can still claim that as a style going forward, it's cool and all, but it's time to start living like modern people.  No more byzantine license requirements and no more gay marriage ban.  No more patchwork fiefdoms and no more corruption.  All that stuff is unbecoming, and all of it affects quality of life.

Ohioans are undereducated: we obtain fewer college degrees than other, more successful states.  Ohioans are ok with only obtaining a high school degree and working as an assember or as an officer clerk.  Unfortunately, those jobs have been disappearing since before I entered the workforce due to automation and the dreaded off-shoring of jobs.

 

A company with plans to sell globally is going to need employees who speak foreign languages.  The CEO of my company laments that "we" cannot find enough people with training in manufacturing: that means industrial engineering and IT systems, not how to hold a wrench.

Actually there are a lot of available jobs that do not require a college degree, but require more than a high school education, so called "middle skill" jobs.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120618/EDIT/306180020/Worker-training-key-local-economy?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

 

Pushing everyone to seek a college degree is not the answer

A right to work state may help as well.

...Pushing everyone to seek a college degree is not the answer...

I agree, but that was not what I was advocating.

 

A right to work state may help as well.

I seriously doubt that.

got data?

Speaking of "got data," where's the data that "we obtain fewer college degrees than other, more successful states?"  We have a massive public university system that's easily capable of handling every high school student in the state who's college material--plus another several thousand who aren't--in addition to the galaxy of smaller private colleges (and some not-so-small ones, for private colleges, anyway) dotting the state.

Actually there are a lot of available jobs that do not require a college degree, but require more than a high school education, so called "middle skill" jobs.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120618/EDIT/306180020/Worker-training-key-local-economy?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

 

Pushing everyone to seek a college degree is not the answer

 

"Danny, the world needs ditch diggers, too"

Speaking of "got data," where's the data that "we obtain fewer college degrees than other, more successful states?"  ....

That was in Eric Fingerhut's book: Making Ohio Great Again http://www.amazon.com/Making-Ohio-Great-Again-Fingerhut/dp/0788021303

Recently heard that about 22% of working college graduates say they don't really use their college education at their jobs.

...Pushing everyone to seek a college degree is not the answer...

I agree, but that was not what I was advocating.

 

 

Sorry, I was speaking in general terms , not @ you....

A right to work state may help as well.

 

Are you kidding me?

The best way is to have a good, growing economy and low cost of living.  Ohio is working on both, as it's already relatively low cost, despite popular belief, and the economy continues to improve, having the 2nd fastest job growth of any state in May.

 

This is actually untrue. I was born and raised in the south, and for years old-school deep south (aka backwards) states like Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, etc. have been trying to figure out how to have the economic growth that exists in other states like North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, etc. Obviously there's a different recipe for each success story, but low costs was only a marginal factor in TN and virtually negligible in NC and especially TX. Cost of living is actually very high in Dallas, for example, whereas Dallas (Houston being "Oil Capital of the World") is clearly the business capital of Texas, in a diversified sense. I know many of you yankee urbanists like to snicker at the big projects in Dallas, but the reality is that you could be dropped in Dallas and honestly swear you were in Chicago and be confused why so many TX license plates everywhere. Dallas has grown up, and it's become an completely enclosed, gentrified (or ghettofied) city.

 

Economics are, by far, the biggest reason people move.  Either for a job, retirement, etc.  This simply cannot be overstated.  The perception has long been that the South offered a low cost of living, but also a low cost to do business.  Attract people, you attract jobs and vice versa.  And every cost of living assessment I've seen has states like Texas and NC toward the bottom of costs.  Ohio tends to be in the middle on most of these, but if you do a direct comparison, Ohio is on par with most things, and much cheaper on others, like real estate.

 

The secret has and always will be young people - education, and then retaining those graduates produced by the education system. TX reinvested a lot of its oil profits in the 70s into making UT and A&M world-class research institutions. NC just did it without a massive cash influx to begin with, by prioritizing UNC and NCST over anything else. TN's main growth driver is the Nashville area, which is a mecca for research, with Vandy, medical schools, national research center in one of the southern suburbs, etc. Outside of Nashville, TN has benefited from low costs and especially a lack of union workers, as companies like Nissan and Toyota have demonstrated a strong preference to avoid union regions in establishing new manufacturing centers. Unfortunately.

 

Young people are key, I agree, but you still need cost and jobs to attract them.  I think you are overstating to some degree what singular institutions really accomplish in terms of long-term growth trends in a state.  I'm sure places like Austin are helped by this, in the same way that Columbus is, but on a statewide scale, I don't think it matters nearly as much as being able to provide good-paying jobs for the graduates, no matter where they graduate from.  Also, I disagree that unions are necessarily holding back Ohio vs other states.  The state residents recently rejected legislation meant to curb union power, and since then Ohio's unemployment rate has dropped 10 straight months and has had the first or second most jobs gained by any state for a couple months already this year alone, including in May.  A significant part of these gains was in manufacturing, particularly related to the auto industry.  The unemployment rate is also almost a percentage point below the national average, one of the largest spreads in decades.  The state is recovering well economically.  Certainly moreso than places like NC, which continue to struggle with jobs and too many people moving there expecting the good times to come back at any moment.   

 

Education is always the most important factor, and having a highly-qualified (and public health is also a factor, being healthy) workforce. It's all about human capital that sets states apart, very little has anything to do with costs. Having low costs will attract non-union manufacturing (which is still good), call centers, Indian casinos, and low-skill service jobs - this is absolutely not a basis for economic growth. No Fortune 500 companies, R&D companies, innovative tech startups, or anything that can add skilled labor opportunities to your economy, are looking for cheap. They are looking for quality places to locate over cheap places. States trumpeting their low costs over their education and quality of life are actively repelling good jobs, as a matter of fact. That's all my home state does and they will never figure out why it doesn't work and why the economy is still 100% tied to oil despite other states like Texas successfully diversifying.

 

Again, retaining graduates is important, but the only way to do that is to have jobs available in their fields.  An educated workforce doesn't do any good if you have no companies to work for.  And Ohio's not exactly at the bottom of the education heap, either, so I don't think the problem is that Ohio doesn't have enough college grads.  And what's most interesting is that the South, including Texas and NC, have some of the lowest rates of job mobility in the nation, meaning that it's much harder to move up the ladder and gain success in these states vs Ohio.  Most people seem to have no idea about that. 

 

Then it comes down to an absolute truism when it comes to economic development. Conservatives craft nothing but dangerous, regressive, backward policies and trumpet them as business-friendly. There is a reason that the most economically prosperous places are usually the most progressive (different from "liberal") in their region - NC and VA are a perfect example of how a state that turned progressive left its Dixie neighbors behind in the dust. If you compare the economic benefits of MS to MN, you'll see a very high-cost yet progressive state up against a very low-cost yet regressive state. If you are an R&D company that employs 200 people, but has a major ripple effect in the economy due to your innovations (in other words YOU are the ED cash cow every state is dreaming about), which state are you going to locate in - MS or MN?

 

I would argue that Ohio is far more progressive politically than any of the Southern states.  The largest private research foundation in the entire world is in Columbus, and Cleveland has nationally recognized innovative health facilities.  It's not like Ohio lacks in the creative.  It's just been that the state has seen 30 years of decline because of too much emphasis on too few industries, not to mention being at the butt end of the suburbia movement.  Those things are no longer reality, so it remains to be seen if Ohio can continue its momentum and become a state people associate with success instead of burning rivers and industrial rot.

 

I wanted to revisit this post because I didn't get a chance to respond. This is accurate economic development thinking... for 1990. You do however allude to what you're missing, which is the creative economy. Richard Florida has written the book on that, and he's taken exception with a lot of conservative AND liberal economists. I once saw Florida speak in a speaker's series we had in OKC a while ago, where he confirmed something we recognized in the 90s which is that while jobs are an important component of ED, that's more of an end result, rather than a means to an end.

 

You won't attract jobs if you have a low quality of life (QoL) because jobs are very chicken v. egg, people  don't just go to jobs, but jobs go to people. Any good ED strategy must begin and end with QoL because above all you want people to take the job in your community, rather than the job elsewhere, because for qualified and skilled labor there are (or should be) abundant job opportunities everywhere. In addition to this, technology and C2C conferencing technology has exacerbated the reality that the creative class (which will be THE key to growth) can work wherever they want, and they don't even have to live where they work.

 

This gets me to probably the most important point that anyone in this thread could possibly make. What is the goal here? Is it to have economic growth or is it to create a high QoL for Ohio residents? What is the point of ED if it doesn't = QoL? In so many European countries they have a high QoL but their population is not growing, despite economic growth (although obviously no economic growth right now due to Austrian-style austerity). I think it's very possible that if you focus on education and QoL, promoting innovation, that you can make Ohio a better place that young people would at least be unlikely to leave. Growth actually leads to more problems, ie., sprawl, infrastructure, etc., that you can avoid as long as you aren't sliding backwards and losing jobs. Unfortunately, Ohio may not be able to avoid population growth if it is enhancing QoL and promoting innovation...

 

What exactly indicates that Ohio lacks in terms of QoL?

 

Competitiveness. It's not that Ohio's QoL is low, it's that Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, and Indianapolis have a higher QoL. Pittsburgh is a great example of a place that has soared in recent years by reasserting its urban parts, and not abandoning its core when it could have easily done so. They have a dynamic mayor, too.

 

Anywhere that is having an oil boom is probably not a long-term model for sustainable economic growth.

Unless you are having a natural gas boom, which is Kasich's modus operandi.

 

Ohio  needs to invest its natural gas boom back into education

 

This is what Texas did with its oil profits in the 1970s. Ohio already has a decent higher ed system, both public and private, but you can't have too much of a good thing there. NC is an absolute model system.

 

Actually there are a lot of available jobs that do not require a college degree, but require more than a high school education, so called "middle skill" jobs.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120618/EDIT/306180020/Worker-training-key-local-economy?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

 

Pushing everyone to seek a college degree is not the answer

 

This is true. A good technical school system is also beneficial, and with vocational education you can partner guys a lot more closely to employees than you can in 4-year colleges. The problem is that while we as a society are probably turning out too many college grads, from a state-by-state economic competitiveness perspective, you can't turn out enough. That's something we'll need to figure out on a national level, and while I certainly would not be pushing all my kids that I may or may not ever have to go to a good college, the state needs to.

I hate blanket statements like in Boreas Post. Really are Ohioans ok with just a High School Education? I'm an Ohioan and I'm not Ok with either of those statements.

 

Pittsburgh has made great progress, but its still shrinking.

 

I think the "trick" is to improve on what we have infrastructure and education wise to make the area more attractive to upwardly mobile individuals, and then market those assets to the World. Too many people still think of Ohio as a place full of only smokestacks and farms.

 

There is probably a list of 100 things Ohio needs to do to be in a league of Texas, N. Carolina, or Georgia in terms of growth. These thoughts clearly are just a few.

^Funny they are all right to work states. I never lived in a right to work state, but I think it's good to have options. You can either join a union or not.

We have a massive public university system that's easily capable of handling every high school student in the state who's college material--plus another several thousand who aren't--in addition to the galaxy of smaller private colleges (and some not-so-small ones, for private colleges, anyway) dotting the state.

 

This has me thinking, could the University System of Ohio do a better job of luring East Coast students?  It seems the high cost of Education there combined with the low cost of living here would be a good recipe for major increases in enrollment.

 

[edit: I see that mov2ohio has suggested something along this line]

Speaking of "got data," where's the data that "we obtain fewer college degrees than other, more successful states?"  ....

That was in Eric Fingerhut's book: Making Ohio Great Again http://www.amazon.com/Making-Ohio-Great-Again-Fingerhut/dp/0788021303

 

That link goes to an Amazon link at which the book isn't even available.  Eric Fingerhut is a politician, so citing him as a source is no different from me citing a speech by John Kasich as a source.  I want to see the actual data that we obtain fewer college degrees than other, more successful states.  (I also want to know how he defines "more successful," now that I know that political definitions are in play ... does he consider California the success, or Texas?  Given his party affiliation, he'd probably be more apt to tailor-make a definition defining California as a success and Texas as a failure.)

 

(1) Which states are posited as "more successful" than Ohio, and because of their superiority to us on what measures?

 

(2) Where is the evidence that even with our massive university system, we still somehow "obtain" fewer college graduates than these other states?  (Incidentally, I should also have earlier called out the use of the word "obtain," because that could equally be spun to mean produce or attract.  By all outward appearances, we produce a surfeit of college graduates--we just don't have the jobs necessary to keep them in the state, or to attract a steady stream of out-of-state college graduates.)

....  Eric Fingerhut is a politician, so citing him as a source is no different from me citing a speech by John Kasich as a source.  ...

Pathetic

It's Georgia, btw.

A right to work state may help as well.

According to the bureau of workers compensation in april 2012 the unemployment rate for right to work states was .6% lower then collective bargaining states but the average hourly rate for all occupations in right to work states was 9.4 % lower as well. So who really knows what the best option is. I think there's probably pro's and cons to both.

^Funny they are all right to work states.

They all also have climates that people in ohio and the midwest supposedly want to move to. For some reason I don't think some people in ohio have any concept of how hot it really gets in those places. I've lived in houston and atlanta for periods of time in my life and I couldn't believe how much I missed ohio's weather.

^Funny they are all right to work states.

They all also have climates that people in ohio and the midwest supposedly want to move to. For some reason I don't think some people in ohio have any concept of how hot it really gets in those places. I've lived in houston and atlanta for periods of time in my life and I couldn't believe how much I missed ohio's weather.

 

I'm convinced if your life is so shallow that only weather matters, then you should consider Southern California.  Apart from that, STFU and get to work.  That is all....

....  Eric Fingerhut is a politician, so citing him as a source is no different from me citing a speech by John Kasich as a source.  ...

Pathetic

It's Georgia, btw.

 

Seriously, you expect me to respect a stat that is extremely counterintuitive based on a link to a page on Amazon where a book written by a Democratic partisan is out of stock?

 

And on what axis is Georgia measured as "more successful" than Ohio?  Are they actually that much richer and/or faster growing than we are?

MS has beaches and warm weather and it hasn't helped them much.

 

Ya know, I don't remember ever seeing a commercial or even any written publication touting MS beaches.

 

If they are nice, perhaps they're a good candidate for the "Pure Michigan" tourism route.

 

 

i have! mississippi tourism commercials play on ny tv from time to time. what i have never seen is any ohio promotional ads. anywhere. its a stealth state. this needs to change.  im not talking anything too mad ave crazy expensive, but ohio needs to get out there and play the publicity game - at least get its state toes in the water. "come back home to the heart of it all!" see? its not like its hard to come up with something, i even put a little retro spin on it too. oh wait heres another one for the urban markets "ohio hit dat!" lol im sure we all could go on and on ;)

 

 

 

i have! mississippi tourism commercials play on ny tv from time to time. what i have never seen is any ohio promotional ads. anywhere. its a stealth state. this needs to change.  im not talking anything too mad ave crazy expensive, but ohio needs to get out there and play the publicity game - at least get its state toes in the water. "come back home to the heart of it all!" see? its not like its hard to come up with something, i even put a little retro spin on it too. oh wait heres another one for the urban markets "ohio hit dat!" lol im sure we all could go on and on ;)

 

 

Good on ya Mississippi! The Robert Trent Golf Trail Commercials have tempted me with Alabama. I don't golf, but Mobile looks nice, and according to the commercial, is a seafood mecca.

 

Anhow, we don't need expensive media campaigns for Ohio. We have rappers repping us for free:

 

 

p.s. ha mrnyc, it's working! from the comments

 

LORAIN OHIO they needed to come here we will show u some REAL THUGGS shout out to Toledo Youngstown, NAtti i know ya go HARD

Mrchrish09 2 days ago in playlist 01

I hear Mobile has leprechauns, so they have that going for them.

 

As for "Right to Work," that is an insane sham. I don't like closed shops... but I don't like placing restrictions on collective bargaining and the fact that R2W simply empowers employers to fire people for trying to organize. If anything, R2W may make a small difference with manufacturing jobs, but will more likely repel skilled labor and people who'd rather move somewhere with less oppressive working conditions.

 

If oppressive working conditions attract jobs, you probably don't want those jobs anyway.

We have a massive public university system that's easily capable of handling every high school student in the state who's college material--plus another several thousand who aren't--in addition to the galaxy of smaller private colleges (and some not-so-small ones, for private colleges, anyway) dotting the state.

 

This has me thinking, could the University System of Ohio do a better job of luring East Coast students?  It seems the high cost of Education there combined with the low cost of living here would be a good recipe for major increases in enrollment.

 

[edit: I see that mov2ohio has suggested something along this line]

 

YES. I think this is necessary. Your higher ed system has to be a magnet unless you're already as large as Texas or California. The thing is, east coast states simply aren't known for quality public universities. This is a strategic advantage that Ohio may have against states to the east, while Penn State is good (we'll have to see this fallout's affect on their institutional credit standing), not everyone in PA can attend PSU.

 

Arizona schools are huge on attracting Cali students. Oklahoma and Arkansas schools have made Texas recruiting a gold mine. I know both OU and OSU absolutely depend on getting 4/5 of their team from Texas. Almost every star football player that OSU has produced under Coach Gundy, except Weeden, was recruited from Texas. Also 30% of our school enrollment was from TX, primarily the Dallas area.

 

If Ohio can capitalize on MI, PA, and NY out-of-state students, they can be poised for growth, and potentially retaining those students after graduation. I don't know if OH already does this, but OK and AR schools extend the same in-state tuition rate to TX students with ACT scores over 26 I think. So essentially, any students who can't get into UT-Austin (which leaves tons of high-scoring students) would rather go to OU, OSU, or UofA over Texas A&M or other UT campuses, and can pay the same if not even less.

 

The end result is that the small town residents of college towns like Stillwater, Fayetteville, and Norman always know school is back in session when 10,000 bmw's with TX license plates descend on the town. A lot of the folks taking all of the new high-paying entry jobs in OKC are OSU/OU kids originally from Texas, so for economic development and human capital development, higher ed's ability to draw from Texas is paying dividends. It works similarly as well for Arizona, because it's not just retirees moving to Phoenix, but also Cali kids who matriculate to ASU/UA. It would work for Ohio too.

 

It's very backward to view your higher ed system as a simple infrastructure for residents only. It must be leveraged creatively not just in your in-migration strategy, but also in producing R&D, and other things.

Still trying to figure out how Indianapolis or Pittsburgh have a better QofL than anywhere in Ohio.  They're very different cities and Ohio is as diverse as any of the states they are in. 

I know people from Ohio who consider Indy a shopping mecca, who make field trips there just for that purpose.  I'm not personally familiar with Indy though.  As for Pittsburgh, it's a lot more intact than any Ohio city.  Instead of striving to become a viable destination, their university area already is one, and it's surrounded by well-kept and functional urban neighborhoods. 

 

Rather than getting defensive, I think we should examine the policy choices that have led to the current discrepancy, and find ways to adapt their more successful approaches here.

Regarding luring more out of state students to Ohio's public universities: if these students tend to leave Ohio after graduation in high numbers (which seems likely), this sounds like a really bad use of public money.  More broadly, given the outmigration of educated workers from Ohio, our public money is providing a lot of education for other states' economies.

 

(2) Where is the evidence that even with our massive university system, we still somehow "obtain" fewer college graduates than these other states?  (Incidentally, I should also have earlier called out the use of the word "obtain," because that could equally be spun to mean produce or attract.  By all outward appearances, we produce a surfeit of college graduates--we just don't have the jobs necessary to keep them in the state, or to attract a steady stream of out-of-state college graduates.)

 

Agreed on the semantics of the discussion. Whether or not young Ohioans seek higher education in higher or lower numbers than in other states, our metro areas most definitely lag other states' in the share of residents with college degrees; this is recently feauted in a Brookings report written up by the NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/us/as-college-graduates-cluster-some-cities-are-left-behind.html?pagewanted=all  But as you point out, sending more Ohioans to college is not necessarily a fix if they just end up leaving (which, in turn, is a net fiscal drain on Ohio).

 

This is not terribly helpful, but I suspect that the policy levers for state-level economic development are far murkier than most economic development professionals care to admit. It's possible lower taxes might help, but I don't think its self evident.  Looking at other states is much harder than people make it out to be because of the host of confounding, correlated factors.  For example, NY, CA, MA and NJ (which I think are typically thought of as high tax states) would likely show much stronger economic and population gains if they loosened land use controls.

I won't hold up low taxes and flexible labor markets as sufficient--or, in fact, even necessary--for a state to be a high growth state, but I certainly think that they are an impetus to growth, and their converses are impediments to growth.  Impediments can be overcome, so it might be theoretically possible to have a high growth state with high taxes and a rigid regulatory environment, but there certainly aren't very many good examples of such states, and I'd be strongly inclined to believe that any such states that I might have missed are succeeding despite their tax and regulatory burdens, not because of them.

I don't disagree that lower taxes lead to growth, but looking at it state-by-state, many of the "low tax" states are supported by federal revenues provided by donor states that typically have higher taxes themselves.  No analysis is complete without considering that inequity in distributing federal funds.  Texas, for example, gets a large amount of personal income from military spending... including Ohio's military spending.  That makes their budget a lot easier to balance.  No need to thank us, Texas.  You're welcome.  Just keep stealing our industries with your artificially low taxes.

I know people from Ohio who consider Indy a shopping mecca, who make field trips there just for that purpose.  I'm not personally familiar with Indy though.  As for Pittsburgh, it's a lot more intact than any Ohio city.  Instead of striving to become a viable destination, their university area already is one, and it's surrounded by well-kept and functional urban neighborhoods. 

 

Rather than getting defensive, I think we should examine the policy choices that have led to the current discrepancy, and find ways to adapt their more successful approaches here.

 

Pittsburgh continues to lose people, just like some of Ohio's cities, and Columbus and Indianapolis are practically twin cities in many aspects.  Aaron Renn, who regularly writes about Indianapolis, suggested not too long ago that Columbus may, in fact, be surpassing Indianapolis on growth and progress given latest trends.  And most of Ohio's cities have great universities and great shopping, though I would say that QofL has little to do with how many shopping malls there are per capita. 

 

If you are trying to make a point that there are lessons to be learned between cities, I agree.  But Pittsburgh can learn from Cleveland and Cleveland can learn from Pittsburgh.  It's not all one way and to suggest it seems couterintuitive to the stated goal.  If we are trying to attract people to Ohio and it's cities, the first thing we do should not be to point out how great you think cities outside of Ohio are in comparison, especially when the reality doesn't support it.

Pittsburgh continues to lose people, just like some of Ohio's cities, and Columbus and Indianapolis are practically twin cities in many aspects.  Aaron Renn, who regularly writes about Indianapolis, suggested not too long ago that Columbus may, in fact, be surpassing Indianapolis on growth and progress given latest trends.  And most of Ohio's cities have great universities and great shopping, though I would say that QofL has little to do with how many shopping malls there are per capita. 

 

If you are trying to make a point that there are lessons to be learned between cities, I agree.  But Pittsburgh can learn from Cleveland and Cleveland can learn from Pittsburgh.  It's not all one way and to suggest it seems couterintuitive to the stated goal.  If we are trying to attract people to Ohio and it's cities, the first thing we do should not be to point out how great you think cities outside of Ohio are in comparison, especially when the reality doesn't support it.

 

The shopping I spoke of in Indy is downtown.  Pittsburgh has that too, in addition to suburban malls.  Our situations are not equivalent.  The debate here is usually how or why Pittsburgh's in better shape, not whether.  That ship sailed years ago.  We're certainly not going to become a high growth state by telling ourselves we already are one.  If other cities and states want to copy us, they're more than welcome to. 

Didnt Nordstrom and Saks recently leave downtown Indy and PBurgh respectively? Granted there is other retail in their downtowns. I think the point is that despite the progress  Pittsburgh's made it is still losing population and Ohio does have areas growing as fast or faster than our neighbor states.

....  Eric Fingerhut is a politician, so citing him as a source is no different from me citing a speech by John Kasich as a source.  ...

Pathetic

It's Georgia, btw.

 

Seriously, you expect me to respect a stat that is extremely counterintuitive based on a link to a page on Amazon where a book written by a Democratic partisan is out of stock?

 

And on what axis is Georgia measured as "more successful" than Ohio?  Are they actually that much richer and/or faster growing than we are?

 

Have you been to Atlanta?

 

Indy is a QoL leader. Cities wanting to improve send delegations there. As for Pittsburgh, it is losing people, but not highly-qualified people OR creative class. Pittsburgh is rising as an extremely innovative city, and it's exemplifying how population growth isn't the end all be all.

 

Here I go back to QoL being the bottom line. What is the point of growth for growth's sake? Is there some pagan god named Growth that we're obligated to make sacrifices to or something? Copenhagen and Stockholm aren't growing, but their QoL is so much higher than anywhere in North America. There's not a day that goes by that I don't miss living in Rotterdam. I miss Moscow a lot too, but I know the distinction that made Rotterdam so much more livable, and why I always saw NL as a country where I may seriously settle down some day. That difference is QoL.

 

I am really confident that the future is going to bring America out-smarting and out-innovating even Europe. They've kicked our butt in the last 40 years, economic hiccup aside (one that isn't affecting the higher QoL countries like NL, DEN, SWE). America is embracing QoL and innovation, and those cities that don't hop on board will absolutely be left behind. There will be a new Detroit, and a new Dallas. Who knows, these cities may even swap fortunes (although I know personally know Dallas has more staying power than it gets credit for).

heres one thing ohio universitys can do to keep people, at least for awhile. my grad programs and others required a year of service in-state after graduation. however, the requirement was honorary only. make it a more formal requirement by making grads pay back assistantships and waived tuitions if they leave in under a year or so. after the grads are resettled aroind ohio and working, they are more likely to stay.

 

another thing would be to make taxes lower for married people. right now state and fed gov have higher tax rates for couples, its informally known as the marriage penalty, but this discourages marriage because it makes it more expensive. this is an easy one ohio could act on and be seen as both progressive and yet satisfy conservatives at the same time, so its win-win. it could be promoted as ohio embraces intact families.

 

those are just a couple ideas, but there are so many more relatively easy actions state gov could take even outside of immigration or the business realms we all wring our hands over to make ohio more attractive -- its not even funny.

 

Back to the University issue for a moment. I wanted to share something cool. My wife (then girlfriend) came from NJ to UAkron in 1991 to save money on education. Again, college plus expenses in NJ are very high. It's not uncommon to live with your parents until you're 30. Her best friend went to Pitt for the same reasons.

 

While enrolling for the second semester my wife was all set to pay out-of-state tuition. This was roughly twice as much as for in-state. The woman at the Registrar casually asked "Are you planning on staying here in Ohio?" My wife said yes, and bam, just like that, she was listed as "resident." Technically, she could have gotten in-state residency the next year but that single move saved her almost two thousand dollars.**

 

On the other hand, several years later with a PA drivers license, living there continuously year round, engaged to a PA resident, with a Pitt degree, her best friend STILL couldn't prove enough to Pitt that she was a resident for grad school!

 

Didnt Nordstrom and Saks recently leave downtown Indy and PBurgh respectively? Granted there is other retail in their downtowns. I think the point is that despite the progress  Pittsburgh's made it is still losing population and Ohio does have areas growing as fast or faster than our neighbor states.

 

Yes, yes, and yes... but our purpose here is to seek out improvements.  If neighboring metros are getting a better result in some way or another, that seems like the lowest of low hanging fruit.  We may be getting a better result in other areas, like populating downtown, but that's not the point here.

I guess I'm not following the discussion about colleges/universities at this point, because I don't think that Ohio's higher education system is the problem.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that our collection of colleges and universities is pretty enviable.  You have public schools with great reputations (like Ohio State or Miami), plenty of large private schools that are well thought of, and probably the best collection of liberal arts schools outside of the northeast in Oberlin/Denison/Kenyon/etc.  Added on to that are religious colleges and other state schools that fill just about every niche you could want.  In short, I'd say we have plenty of issues, but having a solid higher education system in place doesn't seem to be one of them.  Getting more out of that system--or getting more people who come here for school to stay--is a different question. 

I don't disagree that lower taxes lead to growth, but looking at it state-by-state, many of the "low tax" states are supported by federal revenues provided by donor states that typically have higher taxes themselves.  No analysis is complete without considering that inequity in distributing federal funds.  Texas, for example, gets a large amount of personal income from military spending... including Ohio's military spending.  That makes their budget a lot easier to balance.  No need to thank us, Texas.  You're welcome.  Just keep stealing our industries with your artificially low taxes.

 

I want to say Ohio gets a pretty respectable slice of the defense budget itself, too.

 

Also, Ohio is a fair distance above the national median in terms of population age, too.  All other things equal, that means that we're getting a hefty chunk of the old-age entitlement stream, too, which is significantly larger than the defense budget.

Getting more out of that system--or getting more people who come here for school to stay--is a different question. 

 

That would be my point. The schools here plus cost of living is still a good deal.

 

However, the vast majority in NY/NJ do not consider Ohio for higher education. It's just not on the radar. It's "all cornfields, right?" Yes I've actually heard this a lot. Speaking from personal experience, I'm fairly confident that once you get more students here, the opportunities here (and reasons for staying here) will naturally grow.

 

Penn State, WVU, Pitt and UNC WILMINGTON! have literature at the high schools. Akron, Kent, Ohio State, Cincy etc did not.

Yet

Getting more out of that system--or getting more people who come here for school to stay--is a different question. 

 

That would be my point. The schools here plus cost of living is still a good deal.

 

However, the vast majority in NY/NJ do not consider Ohio for higher education. It's just not on the radar. It's "all cornfields, right?" Yes I've actually heard this a lot. Speaking from personal experience, I'm fairly confident that once you get more students here, the opportunities here (and reasons for staying here) will naturally grow.

 

Yet WVU in Morgantown remains a top destination for New Jersey students who can attend there out of state for less than they could go in state back home.  Go figure!