28 replies to this topic

[Lmichigan]

That's obvious.  The state has been trying to do it for decades.  It's easier said then done.  Anyone can be critical and state that Michigan needs more jobs; people have been stating this for years.  BTW, it was already stated above that Pfizer was closing down its operations in Michigan.

[Michi]

Huntsville_secede, on Jan 22 2007, 05:21 PM, said:

...Michigan needs to attract some kind of new job industry...

Reports coming in always say we HAVE attracted that new economy..."Research and Development".

Unfortunately, what is it that these 2,500 jobs fall under?  R & D.

All we ever do in this state is point fingers and blame somebody.  I guess I can't entirely criticize folks for that, because the tail spin is getting quite nauseating, there needs to be some sort of desperate comforting.  On the other hand, Michigan is not going to recover if everyone jumps in the U-Haul van all at once, points to Granholm and says, "It's your fault" as they are angry with Michiganders who don't side with them and are actually trying to turn the tables.

The tone is extremely depressing in this state right now.  The reality is that it should not be.

[Lmichigan]

That's what makes the Pfizer announcement particularly sobering is that the loss, I believe, is in the high-tech sector, and worse yet, in a region that many Michiganians seem to believe is impervious to the economic storm that's been hanging over Michigan for many years.

But, let's put some perspective on today's announcement, this is not the fault of Michigan, at least not anywhere near a 50% blame.  Pifzer is going through some rough times, and they are cutting 10,000 jobs, total.  That means quite a few of their other centers around this country are going to bleed significantly, some of their centers that are just as qualified, economically, for those jobs as Ann Arbor, so this should not be taken as a Michigan-specific problem, especially considering that this is more of a fluke than anything else.

That said, this just further adds insult to injury, but I don't doubt for a minute that Ann Arbor won't have these jobs replaced in more than 5 years, and probably even sooner than that, especially with Google coming and growing in AA.

[d8alterego]

Another interesting article about Michigan:

"Detroit will never be Chicago. Grand Rapids will never be Boston. Ann Arbor will never be Minneapolis. Perhaps they can be better? Clearly, they must become different places than they are today. As a state, we must commit to preserving what is great about our urban areas and work together, public and private sector alike, on programs and initiatives that will enable us to compete with cities in states that are already far ahead of Michigan on the path to prosperity in the new economy."

I'm very glad they emphasize transit in the article.

[Zhahn Doe]

High labor costs, regulation, fear of unionization, and burdensome business taxes are a factor.  I have overseen Human Resources operations at a couple of very well known businesses, and these topics regularly come up when there are discussions of Michigan.  When the auto industry (and the business environment as a whole) was stronger, the state could get away with this, but I think the economy will force a fundamental shift in the relationship between business, labor, and government...ZD

[d8alterego]

Here is an interesting article from the NYtimes.

My favorite part was this:

"North Dakota’s cheery circumstance — which economic analysts are quick to warn is showing clear signs that it, too, may be in jeopardy — can be explained by an odd collection of factors: a recent surge in oil production that catapulted the state to fifth-largest producer in the nation; a mostly strong year for farmers (agriculture is the state’s biggest business); and a conservative, steady, never-fancy culture that has nurtured fewer sudden booms of wealth like those seen elsewhere (“Our banks don’t do those goofy loans,” Mr. Theel said) and also fewer tumultuous slumps."

Yeah, I'm sure you're state's banks didn't "do those goofy loans."

Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy for ND. In fact, I think ND has a lot of virtues that MI could learn from (first and foremost would be complete investment in alternative energy). It also mentioned the fact that ND was recruiting in MI for skilled workers, something that was discussed in the GR forum. That's sad that we are sending MI workers to another state when MI could keep them. Given our political in-fighting in Lansing, however, I can't blame any one person (like Granholm).

I also think it has to do with their population. Having a small population means the percentages don't mean much in unemployment statistics when compared to larger population states.

[NorthCoast]

Zhahn Doe, on Jul 25 2008, 07:38 AM, said:

High labor costs, regulation, fear of unionization, and burdensome business taxes are a factor.  I have overseen Human Resources operations at a couple of very well known businesses, and these topics regularly come up when there are discussions of Michigan.  When the auto industry (and the business environment as a whole) was stronger, the state could get away with this, but I think the economy will force a fundamental shift in the relationship between business, labor, and government...ZD

This post nails it.

As hard as it is for many to digest...the State needs to give up on the auto industry and the whole mentality that goes with. I know there is a lot of pride and history in it (as well as jobs) but facts are facts....this is not the 1950's. Things will probably not go back to the way the were. Not to say that the auto industry can't exist here in some fashion but the State needs to stop making it such a top priority. This could easily be said for states like Indiana and Ohio as well, however, those states of a large city or large cities which diversified a long time ago to help keep their respective states a float. Of course neither one of those states is home to GM, Ford, and Chrysler either.

Like taking off a band aid or ending a relationship...the slower you do it, the more and longer it hurts. If you just rip it off, it hurts but for only a short time. It would be tough. Very tough. Both economically and emotionally but I'm starting to feel as if it may be the only real long term solution. I just hope Michigan doesn't repeat the mistake and move all their eggs from the auto basket to the Health/R&D basket. Diversify!

Economic Darwinism...evolve or die.

Edited by j3shafer, 08 December 2008 - 07:40 PM.

[d8alterego]

I agree. The state has to evolve or it will face the same economic mistakes over and over. By diversifying into different fields (such as alternative energy, R&D, health sciences, manufacturing, and agriculture), it should do better. Add in there some highly efficient mass transit, and you have a winning combo.

[mfellows]

Given the forced restructuring of some domestic automakers and economic pressures across the board, it looks like Michigan is in for a big shift one way or another. Our practice of offering financial inducements to businesses (such as movie producers) for investing or just doing business here has long been criticized by those arguing for a level playing field and against trying to chase the hot industry and trying to pick winnners. I just wonder whether those Act 198 industrial tax abatements awarded businesses for investing here in the last few years will reallybear fruit after the standard 12 years or so. An awful lot of taxable value has been left off the tax rolls, to the detriment of all sorts of local tax units -- schools, libraries, etc. -- on the bet that tax revenues will benefit once the abatements expire.

MSU's Land Policy Institute is sponsoring an interesting event in Lansingthis week, April 14 and 15, that will look at those kinds of questions -- how to best ensure prosperous communities. A new LPI report (at that Website, in the right-hand sidebar) essentially argues that because the much-coveted "knowledge workers" of the new economy are more inclined to seek a great place to live than a high-paying job, the money will eventually chase them. Bottom line, you create desirable places to live, with green areas and other amenities, and you're halfway to growing an economically sustainable community. I think that will resonate better in the long run for a lot of people tired of the old models of economic development. Here's a press releasetalking about the event, with links to social networking opportunities surrounding the LPI's Place and Prosperity Summit.

I wonder if investing in parks, bike paths or waterfront improvements actually works better now than cutting selected taxes ...