So, how's the new economy treating you? (Pittsburgh, Penn: loans, unemployment rate)

[BrianTH]

By the way, here is something relevant for people in Oregon thinking about adopting a Texas model:

Edward L. Glaeser: Behind the Population Shift - NYTimes.com

The upshot is that while Texas is rapidly adding population, it isn't doing particularly well in quality measures like per capita productivity or household income. And as far as raw population growth is concerned, the determinative factor appears to be the ease of building cheap housing.

Interestingly, Glaeser (the author) seems to conclude this makes a case for the higher-quality/slower-growing Northeast states to loosen up their housing regulations. I think there are some specific instances in which that might be a good idea, but overall, why would you want to put your state on a lower-quality/faster-population-growth model in the first place? Glaeser's conclusion is based on the assumption states should be seeking to keep congressional seats, but sacrificing on quality measures for that purpose alone strikes me as a mistake.

[Fiddlehead]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

By the way, here is something relevant for people in Oregon thinking about adopting a Texas model:

Edward L. Glaeser: Behind the Population Shift - NYTimes.com

The upshot is that while Texas is rapidly adding population, it isn't doing particularly well in quality measures like per capita productivity or household income. And as far as raw population growth is concerned, the determinative factor appears to be the ease of building cheap housing.

Interestingly, Glaeser (the author) seems to conclude this makes a case for the higher-quality/slower-growing Northeast states to loosen up their housing regulations. I think there are some specific instances in which that might be a good idea, but overall, why would you want to put your state on a lower-quality/faster-population-growth model in the first place? Glaeser's conclusion is based on the assumption states should be seeking to keep congressional seats, but sacrificing on quality measures for that purpose alone strikes me as a mistake.

Interesting, we were talking about that issue, but not the article, on the Oregon forum yesterday. Some people, especially conservatives, want to lionize Texas, because it missed out on the current bubble and is doing a bit better at the moment, though it had a big oil bubble in the 1980s, and will likely have another meltdown when the wells run dry. People keep drinking the neoliberal koolaid.

I agree with you Brian, not every state wants to be like Texas, for many reasons. I would find it heartbreaking if New England or Oregon allowed the metastisizing sprawl, horrendous commutes, and generally barfy car-centered lifestyles of LA/Phoenix/Las Vegas/Houston/Atlanta to overrun all their historical towns and cities. One day it will dawn on all of us that rapid population and deregulated economic growth create horrid levels of inequality and foul the environment. Texas is a poster child for that. No thanks. Besides, Texas to an Oregonian is like arugula to a redneck... or blood pudding to a vegetarian. Blaaahhhh!

When I thought about it, Pennsylvania seemed to me to be a better parallel/example for Oregon. Centrist to mildly liberal, but with plenty of rural conservatives who have not yet embraced urban/modern economic models to keep it real. That is why I started this thread. I was heartened by the posts about education's transformative properties for the Burgh upthread. That is the one thing we have not yet gotten right in Oregon. People move here to retire, semi-retire, telecommute, panhandle, meditate in the woods, etc., not so much to innovate and invest in their fellow Oregonians. That is something we need to change.

[DaBurgh]

Down to 8% !

Pittsburgh metro jobless rate drops to 8%

[BrianTH]

Some funny things going on with those employment numbers, but in any event, Pittsburgh is remaining steadily below the state and the nation when it comes to unemployment, so that is good.

[rranger]

Originally Posted by Fiddlehead

Interesting, we were talking about that issue, but not the article, on the Oregon forum yesterday. Some people, especially conservatives, want to lionize Texas, because it missed out on the current bubble and is doing a bit better at the moment, though it had a big oil bubble in the 1980s, and will likely have another meltdown when the wells run dry. People keep drinking the neoliberal koolaid.

I agree with you Brian, not every state wants to be like Texas, for many reasons. I would find it heartbreaking if New England or Oregon allowed the metastisizing sprawl, horrendous commutes, and generally barfy car-centered lifestyles of LA/Phoenix/Las Vegas/Houston/Atlanta to overrun all their historical towns and cities. One day it will dawn on all of us that rapid population and deregulated economic growth create horrid levels of inequality and foul the environment. Texas is a poster child for that. No thanks. Besides, Texas to an Oregonian is like arugula to a redneck... or blood pudding to a vegetarian. Blaaahhhh!

When I thought about it, Pennsylvania seemed to me to be a better parallel/example for Oregon. Centrist to mildly liberal, but with plenty of rural conservatives who have not yet embraced urban/modern economic models to keep it real. That is why I started this thread. I was heartened by the posts about education's transformative properties for the Burgh upthread. That is the one thing we have not yet gotten right in Oregon. People move here to retire, semi-retire, telecommute, panhandle, meditate in the woods, etc., not so much to innovate and invest in their fellow Oregonians. That is something we need to change.

That was an, ahem, "interesting" article. And, as many of the commenters on the NYT site noted, Professor Glaeser is a clueless buffoon. Not only would I not want to see the Northeast (or any other place) become more like Texas, there really is no useful parallel. He's comparing places like Connecticut - with their uninterrupted development of almost 400 years - with a huge state having lots of prairie (and bayou) to exploit.

I'm with you Fiddlehead! As someone who has lived in MA for the past 20 years, it is unfortunate that the grotesque sprawl Brian mentions has taken place. Thanks largely to the presence of the I-495 beltway around Boston, Eastern MA now has an aggregate population density that isn't that much higher than Atlanta - sounds impossible to believe, but it's true. Fortunately, the economy crashed before the ecologically unsound development disease could much spread into RI and eastern CT.

Maybe it will take > $5.00 a gallon gas in this country for people to finally wake up to our selfish, unsustainable lifestyles. But, I'm not holding my breath.

[PreservationPioneer]

I don't think educating the work force is necessarily the answer to the woes of the economy. Education is great, but there are only so many professional jobs to go around. I remember it took me almost two years to get a job in my field after graduating from college. Granted, I am from Michigan, where the employment situation is dire.

I think there needs to be an adjustment in this country when it comes to the amount of income that is expected, and needed, to live on. I know that in Pittsburgh, the cost of living is very low, if you do not have champagne taste, anyway. But I think most people have champagne taste!

If you know how to live within your means, I don't think the new economy is going to treat you too bad (in Pittsburgh, at least, where full-time jobs with benefits can be found). In Michigan and some other areas, where there are no full-time-with-benefits jobs to be found, the situation is dreadful and frightening. Here you can find those jobs, but they don't pay a lot. You just have to adjust your income expectations, and living standards, accordingly.

[PreservationPioneer]

Originally Posted by Fiddlehead

Of course generous social services are a mixed bag. A challenge we have in Oregon is that people seem to move here despite double digit employment to be on the scene. My wife works at the social services office and you would not believe the number of young people who stumble out of the parentally-purchased 4Runner, trip over a bong, bongo, and puppy, and come into the office for food stamps. Would they head home to Topeka for a job? No way Dude! So, I value education and retraining, of course, but I certainly have mixed feelings about rolling out the welcome mat for layabouts.

I also work in social services, and what you say is very true! People are leaving Michigan in droves, due to the bad economy, but instead of going where the jobs are (places like Pittsburgh and Baltimore, for example), they go down to Florida, where there is more double digit unemployment! There is an excessive pride thing when it comes to these yuppies, who are willing to accept food stamps before moving to an unglamorous area! How backwards is that?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by rranger

As someone who has lived in MA for the past 20 years, it is unfortunate that the grotesque sprawl Brian mentions has taken place.

I actually do think Glaeser has a point with respect to building restrictions, albeit not for the reasons as stated in that article. Recently lots of places in the Northeast have made it too hard to build densely, which has encouraged sprawl. If the playing field in the Northeast was simply level with respect to development density, I think you undoubtedly would have seen at least somewhat higher population growth, because nationally there is an undersupply of denser developments, and the Northeast in particular has a lot of advantages in providing it.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by alleghenyangel

If you know how to live within your means, I don't think the new economy is going to treat you too bad (in Pittsburgh, at least, where full-time jobs with benefits can be found).

You make a valid point about lifestyle expectations, but I also think it should be noted that the education/skills in question don't necessarily require a 4-year degree. A lot of the jobs employers have trouble filling these days require specialized training, but something consistent with a 2-year degree, certificate program, or so on. What has really become scarce are jobs for people with only a HS degree (if that), which will also provide decent benefits, enough income for a little savings, and so on.

[Fiddlehead]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

You make a valid point about lifestyle expectations, but I also think it should be noted that the education/skills in question don't necessarily require a 4-year degree. A lot of the jobs employers have trouble filling these days require specialized training, but something consistent with a 2-year degree, certificate program, or so on. What has really become scarce are jobs for people with only a HS degree (if that), which will also provide decent benefits, enough income for a little savings, and so on.

I think you make a good point BrianTh,

Namely, that a full BA/BS is not really needed, but something intermediate. When I was an exchange student in Sweden years ago studying comparative education, I recall that the Swedes had a very well developed technical high school or "gymnasium" system. Basic education would end at about 16, with 2-3 years of pre university or technical training in the gymnasium. So their terminal high school grads actually had fairly strong skills, comparable to an AA degree here. I cannot really remember what I could have done as a US high school graduate. "Recent grad, exceptionally proficiency with semicolon placememt, strong grasp of Algebra II, especially the distributive property, B+ on Grapes of Wrath Report, pole vaulted over 11' with only minor tailwind."