| |
 |
Note on October 30, 2009: New comments added at the bottom of the article.
Here's a proposition for you: It takes jobs to create demand for apartment units. But now we have to think about the opposite proposition: It takes job losses to shrink apartment demand.
Boeing talks have fallen apart, again, but this could be the straw that broke the spotted owl's back. [See Seattle Times article] Why is it that when one shoe falls in the forest nobody seems to hear it?
We have a lot of world-class companies based here. Why not, we are a world-class city. After all, we’ve got the Seattle Supersonics. Not only that, but Safeco, Washington Mutual, Seafirst Bank, Immunex, Corixa, Icos, and Boeing are all headquartered here.
Well at least that’s what a Rip Van Winkle might think until he really wakes up. It’s time for us, as a community, to wake up too.
As a region, we have to stop taking businesses for granted, or even abusing them. We need to treat local businesses as though they matter, because they do. We need to put more energy into keeping our great companies here.
Do you know where South Carolina is? Boeing does. Do you know what COMAC stands for? It’s the Commercial Aircraft Company of China, and it’s starting to build jets. We suspect that is a significant development that will have an impact on our region.
Some say airplane production is just an old 20th century technology, so this is nothing to worry about. They say the Puget Sound region has moved on. We’re all about biotech and high-tech now.
There’s some truth in that statement, so thank goodness we have the likes of Microsoft. They are as "Puget Soundy" as they come. They certainly aren’t going anywhere. Think again. Yes, they are based here. But only 44% of their worldwide workforce of 93,000 people work in our region. They, and so many other companies, have a lot more geographic flexibility than local decision-makers give them credit for.
Are we just going to sit around and wait for the other shoe to drop? We need our business and govenrment leaders to be more involved than they have been in attracting and retaining businesses in our region.
Please share your comments.
October 28, 2009: I am a Federalist and Libertarian. I don't believe the government should be involved in creating or retaining jobs. At this point, the only action the government should be taking is working on tort reform, creating new tax incentives, cutting back old taxes and getting out of the way. I am still combing through the US Constitution to find the specific Amendment that states the government(all 3 branches) has the authority to impose healthcare, act as a conservator for private business or utilize the treasury to it's own end. Independent small business and innovation built the economic landscape in this country not the government. Government run anything doesn't work well, ask former citizens of the USSR.
October 28, 2009: Right on, Mike and Patty. This area is in denial (oppressive unions, staggering home prices, bloated government, etc) and, if not corrected, we will be the "Detroit" of the West! In my opinion, so called "growth management" drove this land bubble causing tremendous financial and employment losses. We in the development community should have known better but I, like many of my colleagues, thought this time would be different. Not!
October 28, 2009: Here's a related article from Jim Juback on MSN Money.
October 29, 2009: In my experience, the proper local government role is to provide a competitive tax environment, adequate and appropriate location options, and good services. On a federal level, the relationship between taxes and services should be improved, and corruption should be minimized. Small businesses are vital to the economy, but can't compete in the pay to play game for government-originated expenditures.
October 30, 2009: I have, mostly through my participation with NABE been privileged to have met with many Nobel Laureates in Economics, members of the president's council of economic advisors and other just brilliant people from FDIC, BLS and both houses of Congress. I never got the impression that any of them felt the government had a role in creating jobs, but instead had the responsibility to keep the playing field level and foster responsible economic growth. I guess there's the problem because rarely do economists and researchers agree on what is a viable strategy for economic growth and job creation. I know that in many quarters, the fundamental re-industrialization of the U.S., with jobs changing from farming and manufacturing to services has been widely accepted but rarely understood. According to an article in Monthly Labor Review, published by the BLS, we've been losing manufacturing jobs for over 75 years already. I'd like to see an effective, non-politically motivated stimulus package and capital markets stabilization policy response. I think it would help get things back on track. I'm not for higher taxes, but that is, potentially the price of admission at this point. I'm probably more of a Keynes theorist than an Adam Smith adherent, but it seems to me some form on intervention is warranted.
October 30, 2009: I would add that part of leveling the playing field includes building and supporting infrastructure that allows businesses to flourish while protecting the consumer from direct and externalized costs, which admittedly are hard to quantify and therefore the source of much debate. Government (i.e., taxpayer) sourced infrastructure projects that benefit businesses, and would likely not have been as developed without such a large scale approach, include our public school system that provides a wide-spread, educated work force, our highway infrastructure that allows greater mobility of resources and goods to the end consumer, our legal system that provides a common set of rules and allows for (mostly) orderly arbitration, and more recently the internet that improves the "mobility" of information. Each of these endeavors directly created jobs, and then fostered additional job creation in the private sector. It is up for debate whether building a better energy infrastructure or a healthier workforce and consumer base falls into these categories. I believe Patty and Mike were probably thinking about more direct stimulus to specific industries and business types (e.g., small business). I have a harder time envisioning the government's appropriate role in job creation for individual businesses, though removing hurdles they face in in their start-up phase, such as access to credit seems desirable. However, often it is not a matter of whether costs must be paid, but who will pay them, the private entity or John Q Public (a.k.a. the government).
