I disagree with the idea that we need to "move past dependence on manufacturing jobs".  I think we need to realize that we'll be stronger as a nation if we don't give up our manufacturing jobs and tax base to "free trade partners" that don't trade fairly with us.

I disagree with the idea that we need to "move past dependence on manufacturing jobs". I think we need to realize that we'll be stronger as a nation if we don't give up our manufacturing jobs and tax base to "free trade partners" that don't trade fairly with us.

 

There are a lot of opportunities out there. There are many Ohio businesses who are ahead of the curve who are looking to capitalize on wind technology, medical device manufacturing, etc. To say that we need to kick manufacturing aside is equivalent to looking to People Magazine for economic development advice for the next 20 years. Be smart and don't listen to shallow Forbes-esque advice for how to formulate our ED strategies.

I disagree with the idea that we need to "move past dependence on manufacturing jobs".  I think we need to realize that we'll be stronger as a nation if we don't give up our manufacturing jobs and tax base to "free trade partners" that don't trade fairly with us.

 

It's true that we're kind of getting a raw deal on the manufacturing side right now. We're essentially subsidizing the growth and modernization of China. But I have absolute faith that they will get what is coming to them very soon as their workers wake up and realize that their government has been stealing all their accumulated wealth in the form of an inflation tax, and they demand higher wages. It is already happening now.

 

What I don't agree with is going back to manufacturing as a bread-and-butter base. I might step on some toes here, but I do not feel as if manufacturing labor has an appropriate place any more in this country. Such jobs are carried out in unpleasant atmospheres and largely require no formal education. If it is our goal to college-educate all of America's youth, we'll end up with a very unhappy manufacturing workforce whose job does not capitalize on that education. As one of those people, I would rather jump off a building (or more realistically, wait tables) than work in a factory. If we artificially perpetuate this kind of labor in the U.S. in favor of the older, factory-seasoned generation, we will never give our infrastructure an opportunity to fully adapt to providing jobs that require more education, knowledge and experience.

 

To keep this on topic, I'll refer to the regional loss of manufacturing jobs. Something occurred to me recently--I've lived here the majority of my life, and during all that time I have never met an unemployed factory worker. Not one. Ever. This leads me to entertain the idea that there's a great deal of population turnover here. The factory worker who loses his job moves to Texas. He is replaced with an immigrant, which keeps the population numbers flat. This is in sharp contrast to Michigan, where it seems much more obvious to me that most of the population puts a great deal of stock in the unions to somehow re-employ them. Just idle observations, no evidence except frequent trips to Flint and Detroit.

Also, the vast majority of manufacturing jobs lost were lost to automation, not to outsourcing.  That means that the manufacturing is still actually happening here; it's just that a plant that used to require 5000 workers to meet the market's needs now needs only 300.  Total U.S. manufacturing output was actually steadily rising until the recession hit.

 

There is a difference between the economy and the labor force.  I think manufacturing has a bright future as a portion of the American economy, probably actually more than its current levels.  That said, I don't think that there's any future in hoping for hundreds of thousands (or millions) of manufacturing jobs to reappear to absorb excess blue collar labor.  At today's high and rising productivity levels, the number of manufacturing facilities that would have to open or expand to create that many manufacturing jobs is simply astronomical.

^ You hit the nail on the head. We simply can't expect that nuking China will suddenly cast us back into prosperity by virtue of bringing all the manufacturing jobs back. Neither can we believe that excess government subsidies will suddenly re-employ all those out-of-work factory workers. We have one of the higher standards (and costs) of living in the world, and we need to manage our time wisely in order to avoid squandering all that productivity we have.

^I didn't suggest either of those ideas.  But, I don't think that it's realistic or desirable for us all to have college diplomas.  Already too many people have them (IMO), so they are worth less and less.

^  Why shouldn't everyone have a college degree, _if_ the increase in productivity exceeds the cost of education? Simple cost-benefit analysis yields the notion that in an economy largely made up of knowledge-based industries, especially professional services, shows that a degree can increase one's net worth many times over. The flaw with our system--and the reason why college education is now so devalued--is because of failure of universities to actually teach their students anything. It's not that there are too many educated people out there. It's that too many degree-holders aren't any more qualified than high-school-educated job candidates. Thus, the degree becomes devalued.

 

 

 

I think X is closer to the mark.  It's true that we could profit substantially by shifting postsecondary education more towards career skills and less towards the classical liberal arts curriculum.  (Everyone always laughed at the business majors until they all started getting good jobs.)  However, we're at a point now where just about every student who is really college material, as well as quite a few (some would say many) who are not, gets into college.  Those who slip through the cracks are more likely lost due to the exorbitant price of higher education, not any lack of available spots.

 

The greater emphasis needs to be on K-12 reform.  If we're not getting people reading basic English in 13 years, another 4 years of remedial coursework isn't going to help--never mind that someone who takes 17 years to learn to write a complete sentence probably doesn't have much of a future in any verbally-oriented profession.

 

Some of the projected major growth fields, such as IT and health care, do require education past the 12th grade level for the better jobs in the sector.

 

On the flip side, I know a few electricians and a plumber from the area of Licking County between nowhere and BFE where I grew up, and I know another few people from OSU who have Master's degrees in Communication.  One group of those makes a decent living and has no debt.  The other has access to the football ticket lottery.

But I highly doubt more socialization of education ("everyone should get a degree") is going to fix this. It will only make it worse.

 

I'll agree with you here 100%. I find it ironic that those who support subsidization and manipulation of industries to "create jobs" also tend to be the people who support socialized college education. These two goals simply do not fit. The jobs the subsidies create often are truly awful. (Would you like to work at a recycling plant? What if you had a PhD?)

 

Not to mention that university education in this country has turned into a joke. They should call it 4-year daycare and liver training.

But I highly doubt more socialization of education ("everyone should get a degree") is going to fix this. It will only make it worse.

I'll agree with you here 100%. I find it ironic that those who support subsidization and manipulation of industries to "create jobs" also tend to be the people who support socialized college education. These two goals simply do not fit. The jobs the subsidies create often are truly awful. (Would you like to work at a recycling plant? What if you had a PhD?)

 

True, but even in a world of increasing automation, we still need *someone* to work at the recycling plant.  We're a long way from the point where all manufacturing activity will be conducted by miles upon endless miles of fully automated (i.e., Morlock-free) subterranean factories that pop out finished products for the enjoyment of surface-dwellers.

^ The internet is a massive job destroyer. The average person doesn't know that yet, but they will in 10 years.

The Internet is also a massive job creator, though.  On net, it's produced far more than it's destroyed, including many, many jobs on the higher end.

 

Nothing in this world is 100% good, but the Internet is certainly a lot more good than bad.

Just to clarify my opinion that we need to become less dependent on manuafacturing jobs, I do think we need to continue to produce things.  The issue is that this industry has seemingly been in a death spiral for a long time for reasons already mentioned.  Other sectors of our economy have been growing, and this has been a continual drag on the overall performance.  The sooner we get to what are going to be sustainable jobs the better as the numbers will become stable.  Unfortunately, I do not think we know what the bottom is for this sector.

Out of all the states, Ohio is one of the biggest exporters to China and India in the manufacturing sector. We also have one of the most DIVERSE manufacturing sectors. With all of these green initiatives in Ohio, I think it's going to evolve and I think we're going to be fine.

I'll simply note that the ill-fated construction boom of the last decade was an attempt to create 'manufacturing' jobs that couldn't be outsourced beyond our borders (the question of immigrant labor notwithstanding) and could be done w/out a college degree.

 

I think too many people go for trad. four year college degrees. I also think high school is far too easy (as is college) and more of the education that happens in college should have taken place in high schools (extracurriculars have become entirely too large a part of the K-12 experience). However, I strongly believe that everyone needs a couple years of post-high school liberal arts education (history, literature, civics (not poli. sci), maybe some philosophy or theology), however I'd like to see that combined w/ vocational style programs instead of solely residing in the land of the B.S. and B.A.. However, I think that many students might be better off waiting until their mid-20s or early 30s to take the liberal arts courses, instead of at the peak of the immaturity at 18 or 19.

Ill-fated, but not necessarily ill-conceived.  Construction jobs *are* among the hardest to outsource (though I would hesitate to call them "manufacturing;" the two sectors are generally recognized as distinct).  We've exhausted a good portion of the suburban expansion potential of that construction boom, but that doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of places in this country where one can see a job for construction workers, if the other market conditions align.  I wouldn't be surprised to see remodeling gain some steam if the current interest rate environment prevails for a while longer, for example.

 

I would be surprised, but in a good way, to also see a wave of slum demolition and reconstruction (i.e., reconstruction as something better) in genuinely blighted urban neighborhoods, too.  This is a dicey area for me because I don't see that happening without government intervention, e.g., the Home Again program in Columbus, and government bureaucrats are often overzealous (or captured by special interests) in declaring areas "blighted."  (This is particularly a problem in eminent domain proceedings, though Ohio has stronger state law due to the Ohio Supreme Court's Norwood decision than would be the case if only federal law obtained in Ohio.)

 

As for secondary and postsecondary education, I agree that high school and college in the liberal arts is too easy.  My friends in the natural sciences and engineering actually had to work for their grades.  I don't think I see much of a case for universal postsecondary liberal arts education (whether at age 18 or 30), and to the extent that I do, I'd suggest joining a book club at the public library for the cost of a few pizzas a year rather than college classes that will put you a few tens of thousands of dollars in debt.

As for secondary and postsecondary education, I agree that high school and college in the liberal arts is too easy.  My friends in the natural sciences and engineering actually had to work for their grades.  I don't think I see much of a case for universal postsecondary liberal arts education (whether at age 18 or 30), and to the extent that I do, I'd suggest joining a book club at the public library for the cost of a few pizzas a year rather than college classes that will put you a few tens of thousands of dollars in debt.

 

^Hilarious.  Dmerkow, you should read Louis Menand's new book The Marketplace of Ideas.  It is short and gives a really interesting history of higher ed in the U.S.  I think it said something like only 2% of all college grads are history majors, whereas half are business majors.  It seems to me that you'd be better off requiring a semester of practical business courses and then let folks study what they want in school.

I would also add to my response to dmerkow that I think that extracurriculars are too small a part of the K-12 experience.  I think that cross country was every bit as important to my personal development in high school as most of my academic classes.  Also, while this is a correlation and I don't mean to make a causal point out of it, the majority of the people in my AP and honors classes were varsity athletes in at least one sport.  There are some people who meet the stereotype of the dumb jock, but it is/was by no means enough to justify the stereotype.

I'm not surprised about the 2%. I'm actually glad to hear that statistic.

 

I agree with Gramarye. I've learned much more about history from going to the library or doing research online. I've gotten very little out of history classes in college. Total waste of money. Most people's majors have classes that provide a good enough theoretical and historical basis to help them with their career. Professors really only come in handy in labs and studios where you're really struggling and need guidance to obtain skills and I don't look at history as a skill. A liberal arts education is good to have but I just know of so many people who are huge history buffs, culture buffs and extremely articulate who never even went to college. It's something they explored and discovered out of their own curiosity. It's 2010; information is easy to obtain. You can become a very worldly person by going to the library, online, or just venturing out into the world.

 

 

I'd quibble, but then I have one of those stupid liberal arts degrees, and then a master's degree in the liberal arts, and then a PhD history, if only I had known that history wasn't skill I wouldn't have wasted all that time.

I guess I said that in a pretty condescending way. Skill in the sense that (at least to my knowledge) it doesn't really have vocational applications. I guess if you're a trader of rare books/collectables/antiques all that knowledge would be really useful and could certainly make someone a lot of money but it seems like History degrees are mostly good for teaching. You guys know me; I love reading books by social critics but I kinda feel like it's a useless hobby. I just read or watch lectures online for fun. I mean, at the end of the day where is all of the debating going to get anyone? The biggest public intellectuals hardly ever have an impact on policy. Americans want an iPhone 4, not a thesis on how Generation Y in America is afflicted with a character disorder.

 

I definitely think it would be very dangerous if we stopped having classes in humanities, history, social sciences, etc. all together because they arouse a person's curiosity in those fields of knowledge but I think there would also be a huge problem if 40% of college students majored in history, linguistics, literature, etc. while the folks in India and China are all going into engineering or medicine simply because they can't afford to do otherwise.

 

 

Btw, I love your posts where you tie in current events with historical equivalents and disect its meaning. Fascinating stuff.

Ill-fated, but not necessarily ill-conceived. Construction jobs *are* among the hardest to outsource

 

There's so much irony here though. These jobs are easily taken by immigrants, especially illegals. We don't see it as much in midwest but in the Southwest where the big construction boom occurred, they were using cheap immigrant labor to build over-priced houses. One thing that contributed to viability of the rise in home prices was the cultural difference between Americans and Mexicans. Mexicans (along with other cultures like India I believe) are more inter-dependent on extended family. They can easily tolerate living in a house with 8 other people who are their brother-in-laws, cousins, etc. They're very close. Americans always tended to want to take care of their immediate family and live on their own while putting extra emphasis on civic duty rather than a duty to the extended family. So in a lot of cities, rising home prices correlated to immigration because you have 10 people willing to live in a house who can afford to pitch in a couple hundred bucks each towards the mortgage while still having higher standards of living than that of Mexico which is what they have for comparison.

Ill-fated, but not necessarily ill-conceived.  Construction jobs *are* among the hardest to outsource

 

There's so much irony here though. These jobs are easily taken by immigrants, especially illegals. We don't see it as much in midwest but in the Southwest where the big construction boom occurred, they were using cheap immigrant labor to build over-priced houses. One thing that contributed to viability of the rise in home prices was the cultural difference between Americans and Mexicans. Mexicans (along with other cultures like India I believe) are more inter-dependent on extended family. They can easily tolerate living in a house with 8 other people who are their brother-in-laws, cousins, etc. They're very close. Americans always tended to want to take care of their immediate family and live on their own while putting extra emphasis on civic duty rather than a duty to the extended family. So in a lot of cities, rising home prices correlated to immigration because you have 10 people willing to live in a house who can afford to pitch in a couple hundred bucks each towards the mortgage while still having higher standards of living than that of Mexico which is what they have for comparison.

 

Its not dependency its cultural.  In some cultures, a man marries and moves his wife into his parents home until he can provide adequate housing.

David - it's okay. I didn't take it personally at all. I'd say that doing good history is more vocational than one might think even beyond specific applications related to the detritus of the past, but the world probably has too many historians as it is. I think History can often be a really good thinking, reading, writing program that is more grounded in the real world than say English or Philosophy.

 

Ironically, the Mexican education system and the continued value on skilled craft labor in Latin America is what made those immigrants such valuable labor.

I definitely think it would be very dangerous if we stopped having classes in humanities, history, social sciences, etc. all together because they arouse a person's curiosity in those fields of knowledge but I think there would also be a huge problem if 40% of college students majored in history, linguistics, literature, etc. while the folks in India and China are all going into engineering or medicine simply because they can't afford to do otherwise.

 

What's interesting is how much that an opinion like this derives from an assumption about the purpose of American education and nation-state that stems directly from the Cold War, particularly post-Sputnik.

Fifth Third spinoff eyes more spaceBusiness Courier of Cincinnati -

 

by Dan Monk and Steve Watkins Courier staff reporters

Media

 

Fifth Third Processing Solutions, the electronic-funds transfer spinoff of Fifth Third Bancorp, is scouring Ohio locations for up to 200,000 square feet of new office space.

 

The company is growing rapidly one year after the bank sold a 51 percent ownership stake to Boston-based Advent International Corp., said Terry Zizzo, an executive in charge of human resources for Fifth Third Processing. Zizzo described the search for office space as exploratory and added there is no time frame for a decision...

 

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2010/07/19/story2.html?b=1279512000^3657951

 

Hopefully they stay downtown...this is a great growth industry!!!  Can anyone say anchor tenant for the Banks office town!  200,000 sq feet is a good start.

^There's certainly room down there for them, and you wouldn't even need a new office complex at the Banks to accomodate them.

Fifth Third spinoff eyes more spaceBusiness Courier of Cincinnati -

 

by Dan Monk and Steve Watkins Courier staff reporters

Media

 

Fifth Third Processing Solutions, the electronic-funds transfer spinoff of Fifth Third Bancorp, is scouring Ohio locations for up to 200,000 square feet of new office space.

 

The company is growing rapidly one year after the bank sold a 51 percent ownership stake to Boston-based Advent International Corp., said Terry Zizzo, an executive in charge of human resources for Fifth Third Processing. Zizzo described the search for office space as exploratory and added there is no time frame for a decision...

 

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2010/07/19/story2.html?b=1279512000^3657951

 

Hopefully they stay downtown...this is a great growth industry!!! Can anyone say anchor tenant for the Banks office town! 200,000 sq feet is a good start.

 

"Banks office town" = Banks office tower.

Strickland announces plan for solar energy project

Tuesday, October 5, 2010  02:27 PM

The Columbus Dispatch

 

Gov. Ted Strickland announced an agreement today to construct a 239,400-panel solar array in southeast Ohio that could create as many as 600 jobs.

 

Turning Point Solar, a 49.9-megawatt solar array, will be built on 1,500 acres of land adjacent to The Wilds nature preserve and straddling Noble and Morgan counties. It will generate enough electricity to power 25,000 homes, according to American Electric Power, which agreed to purchase the power.

 

Full story at: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/10/05/solar-energy-project.html?sid=101

 

 

 

Huge solar panel farm coming to southeast Ohio

Published: Tuesday, October 05, 2010, 2:41 PM    Updated: Tuesday, October 05, 2010, 3:03 PM

John Funk, The Plain Dealer

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- In a joint news conference with Gov. Ted Strickland, American Electric Power CEO Michael Morris said AEP is partnering with a developer to build a 50 million-watt solar field on 500 acres in southeast Ohio that was once a strip mine.

 

"The future has recognized Ohio," Strickland said in brief remarks.

 

Full story at: http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2010/10/huge_solar_panel_farm_coming_t.html

Turning Point Solar, a 49.9-megawatt solar array, will be built on 1,500 acres of land adjacent to The Wilds nature preserve and straddling Noble and Morgan counties. It will generate enough electricity to power 25,000 homes, according to American Electric Power, which agreed to purchase the power.

 

Errr... someone should correct AEP's numbers. When I plug 49.9 megawatts and 25K homes into a calculator I get 1960 watts per home. That allows every household to perhaps run their toaster or microwave, or, their TV and computers, but only if they unplug the microwave first...  a heat pump or an electric water heater is out of the question.

 

Maybe 2500 to 5000 homes.

Actually the estimate is pretty close. The average home uses 920kwh per month which when divided by 30 days and 24 hours equals about 1300 average watts.  So when you account for the solar panels not creating power at night the numbers match up.  Instead of reacting with criticism just look up the numbers. 

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp#electricity_use_home

I'm impressed that major players like AEP actually think that we can produce solar power cost-effectively at these latitudes.  Or maybe they really don't think that and they're just reacting to legal mandates.

1/2 % of Ohio's electricity has to come from Solar by 2020/5? so the mandate will make it profitable because it will have to be sourced in state. New Jersey already has a solar mandate and they are putting in Solar Farms like crazy there. The S-RECs (Solar-Renewable Energy Credits, The trading mechanism used to meet the mandate) are worth a ton right now. I am not sure about that location in southern Ohio but I know that NEO has less than favorable conditions for solar farms compared to New Jersey, which I believe has an addition 70 sunny days a year than NEO.

Article published November 07, 2010

Political changes raise questions on Ohio solar industry

By SHEENA HARRISON

BLADE BUSINESS WRITER

 

Despite a growing U.S. solar energy market, a changing political landscape is presenting challenges for domestic solar panel makers that could dampen the future of the Toledo area's budding alternative-energy industry.

 

Government subsidies and assistance have played a significant role in the growth of the domestic solar industry. But two federal programs that have largely helped local solar companies are to expire in the next year, and it's unclear whether they will be extended

 

Full story at: http://www.toledoblade.com/article/20101107/BUSINESS03/101109694

Good news....not great...but good. For all of the pre-election hot air expended by the GOP candidates in Ohio about how bad Ohio's economy was......

 

Ohio economy is 5th fastest growing, but growth is expected to flatten

Published: Sunday, November 07, 2010, 5:00 AM    Updated: Sunday, November 07, 2010, 8:29 AM

Olivera Perkins, The Plain Dealer

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Strange as it may sound, the economic recovery in Ohio has been stronger than in most states. But high unemployment persists, and now a slowing period may be upon us.

 

That's how researchers assess the state's economy two months from year's end -- and with a wary eye toward 2011.

 

Ohio had the fifth fastest growing economy of any state during the past 12 months, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, which tracks economic conditions in each state.

 

Read more at: http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2010/11/ohio_economy_is_fifth_fastest_growing_but_growth_is_expected_to_flatten.html

For all the talk of the supposed superiority of the Texas economic model:

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/1024dntexbudgetmess.274b11d.html

 

They are $25 billion in the hole.

Since the efforts to avert a Wall Street & banking crash were the subject of so much debate here in Ohio and elsewhere... it's interesting to read this op-ed by Warren Buffett in today's NY Times...

 

Pretty Good for Government Work

By WARREN E. BUFFETT

Omaha

 

DEAR Uncle Sam,

 

My mother told me to send thank-you notes promptly. I’ve been remiss.

 

Let me remind you why I’m writing. Just over two years ago, in September 2008, our country faced an economic meltdown. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the pillars that supported our mortgage system, had been forced into conservatorship. Several of our largest commercial banks were teetering. One of Wall Street’s giant investment banks had gone bankrupt, and the remaining three were poised to follow. A.I.G., the world’s most famous insurer, was at death’s door.

 

Many of our largest industrial companies, dependent on commercial paper financing that had disappeared, were weeks away from exhausting their cash resources. Indeed, all of corporate America’s dominoes were lined up, ready to topple at lightning speed. My own company, Berkshire Hathaway, might have been the last to fall, but that distinction provided little solace.

 

Full op-ed at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/opinion/17buffett.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a212

 

Good news....not great...but good. For all of the pre-election hot air expended by the GOP candidates in Ohio about how bad Ohio's economy was......

 

Ohio economy is 5th fastest growing, but growth is expected to flatten

Published: Sunday, November 07, 2010, 5:00 AM   Updated: Sunday, November 07, 2010, 8:29 AM

Olivera Perkins, The Plain Dealer

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Strange as it may sound, the economic recovery in Ohio has been stronger than in most states. But high unemployment persists, and now a slowing period may be upon us.

 

That's how researchers assess the state's economy two months from year's end -- and with a wary eye toward 2011.

 

Ohio had the fifth fastest growing economy of any state during the past 12 months, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, which tracks economic conditions in each state.

 

Read more at: http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2010/11/ohio_economy_is_fifth_fastest_growing_but_growth_is_expected_to_flatten.html

 

It's not strange at all. What's strange ot me is that the PD dosen't mention that the best performing metro in the 5th best performing state isn't Columbus or Cincinnati but Cleveland. Then again, it is the PD.

Good article from Edward Glaeser:

 

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/behind-the-population-shift/?hp

 

One of the most interesting parts:

 

"If economic productivity – created by low regulations or anything else – was causing the growth of Texas and Arizona and Georgia, then these places should have high per capita productivity and wages. Yet per capita state product in Arizona in 2009 was $35,300, 16 percent less than the national average. Per capita state products were $36,700 and $42,500 in Georgia and Texas, respectively.

 

These figures are far below per capita state products in slow-growing places like Connecticut ($58,500), Massachusetts ($50,600) and New York ($50,200). According to the Census Bureau’s 2009 American Community Survey, median family incomes were $56,200, $60,800 and $56,600 in Georgia, Nevada and Texas, but $83,000, $81,000 and $66,900 in Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York."

 

His point about the ability to build housing cheaply in these Sun Belt states is quite interesting.  The fact that he doesn't touch on immigration or changing patterns of world trade seems like he's forgetting a big part of the picture.  Nevertheless it is interesting.

I agree, a very interesting article, and one that highlights an issue that he is right has gotten unfairly marginalized by people (on both sides) focusing on business regulation rather than land use regulation.

 

Failing to mention immigration seems like a material omission to me as well.  I don't think changing patterns of world trade necessarily materially affect his analysis, though: New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Seattle, etc. are major world trade centers, are likely to remain so, and would likely be even more competitively so if they could get a more elastic housing supply that would bring the cost of living within reach for more people.  Thought exercise: If the median home in greater NYC could be had for Houston's $159,000 instead of NYC's $470,000, what would the population of greater NYC be?

 

ETA: My thought about what he left out is the fact that Midwestern states like Ohio and Michigan are losing ground to the Sun Belt as well, and housing costs here are nowhere near what they are in the coastal states that are also losing population.  He used Boston and NYC because they fit his thesis best, but what about Detroit, Toledo, etc.?

An addition to the thought exercise: What would be the price of the Houston dwelling vs. the NYC dwelling absent of all subsidies associated with them?

Depends on how broadly you define "subsidy," and your allocation system.

ETA: My thought about what he left out is the fact that Midwestern states like Ohio and Michigan are losing ground to the Sun Belt as well, and housing costs here are nowhere near what they are in the coastal states that are also losing population.  He used Boston and NYC because they fit his thesis best, but what about Detroit, Toledo, etc.?

 

I don't think his thesis is that Houston grew fast only because it had cheap housing due to lax land use regs, but rather that Houston's housing supply is able to respond to demand much more efficiently than in the Northeast.  For convenience, he's treating economic dynamism and demand as exogenous, so I think it's fine that he didn't get into immigration or international trade.  By the same token, many folks here have already pointed out that Mississippi is hardly a high growth economy despite what I presume to be a similar regulatory environment as Texas.

 

One thing I don't understand is his cites to per capita productivity and household income to build his case.  Wouldn't productivity per dollar of employment expense be the right productivity metric for businesses?  Employees in Boston may per 30% more productive, but what if they cost 40% more to employ?  I'm not saying this is the case (pretty sure it's not for that example), but it's certainly the narrative when comparing Ohio and Texas, anyway (with different numbers).

One thing I don't understand is his cites to per capita productivity and household income to build his case. Wouldn't productivity per dollar of employment expense be the right productivity metric for businesses? Employees in Boston may per 30% more productive, but what if they cost 40% more to employ? I'm not saying this is the case (pretty sure it's not for that example), but it's certainly the narrative when comparing Ohio and Texas, anyway (with different numbers).

 

That sounds like a better metric than what he used, too.  I would also be interested in looking at the rate of change in per capita state GDP rather than state GDP full stop.  If Arizona started a ways back but has been gaining rapidly on the still-wealthier but not-by-as-much Northeast, that would also be instructive.  In some ways, it would be similar to the dynamic that is occurring with places like Brazil, India, China, Chile, etc. with respect to advanced First World economies like the U.S. and Japan, only with internal migration patterns added in because there are many fewer barriers to moving to Arizona for work than moving to Chile for work.

Recession changes shape of manufacturing in Ohio

Slump sped up job losses, but industry remains big part of state economy

RUSS ZIMMER • CentralOhio.com • January 10, 2011

 

What the Great Recession did to the manufacturing industry in Ohio wasn't so much an annihilation as an acceleration.

 

But all is not lost for the economic sector that pushed the Buckeye State to prominence in the past century.

 

Production in Ohio will be different in many ways, but what's of most importance to the well-being of the state is manufacturing still will be here, period.

 

Full story at: http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/article/20110110/NEWS01/101090305/Recession-changes-shape-of-manufacturing-in-Ohio

Looks like Ohio will be picking up another Fortune 500 company, now that Marathon is breaking off its refining business as a seperate company and HQing it back in Findlay.  Good news.

 

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110113/BUSINESS03/110119771

^nice to have a hq but does not look like any new jobs.

The statewide employment map is interesting to look at:

http://ohiolmi.com/laus/ColorRateMap.pdf

 

December unemployment rates in Cuyahoga, contiguous counties beat Ohio

By SCOTT SUTTELL

12:01 pm, January 25, 2011

 

Cuyahoga County and its six contiguous counties all have unemployment rates below the statewide jobless rate, according to data released by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.

 

The December unemployment rate in Cuyahoga County was 8.6%, a full percentage point below Ohio's jobless rate of 9.6%.

 

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20110125/FREE/110129886

^nice to have a hq but does not look like any new jobs.

 

Not immediately.  It's usually considered a good omen for expansions down the road, though.