Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Center is a faculty cluster and research facility that is dedicated to the science and engineering research and development that is driven by systems for a sustainable society. The group is concerned with new materials, processing, modeling and analysis that supports design for performance and durability of solid oxide fuel cells, electrolyzers and related devices.
USC's Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) Center is one of 51 SmartState Centers in South Carolina created in 2002 and funded by the state lottery.
The state's three public research institutions, USC, MUSC and Clemson, have Centers of Economic Excellence in research areas to advance South Carolina's economy. The SOFC center is a world leader in solid oxide fuel cell and energy systems research. The center is directed by Ken Reifsnider, one of the world's preeminent energy researchers.
Here is some info about private-public partnerships in SC that are facilitated through the SmartState program, where the state matches company investment in research colloboration with MUSC, Clemson and USC. SC has 55 of these research centers with private-public collaboration. A lot more than I realized, and in so many different fields.
there is a lot more university-business collab outside of this, but the state doesn't match the company investments in these partnerships.
I've thought about these private - public partnershps some more, the ones where our state government matches a company's investment in research. I think SC has actually spent too much tax revenue on it, because there is no guarantee the research leads to jobs, and many of the jobs that are created will be filled by transplants, increasing our population rather than employing the unemployed 'low skill' natives.
We are basically subsidizing certain companies private interests. Some of this research is probably pie in the sky research that a company would never pursue if they had to foot the entire cost of it.
I've thought about these private - public partnershps some more, the ones where our state government matches a company's investment in research. I think SC has actually spent too much tax revenue on it, because there is no guarantee the research leads to jobs, and many of the jobs that are created will be filled by transplants, increasing our population rather than employing the unemployed 'low skill' natives.
We are basically subsidizing certain companies private interests. Some of this research is probably pie in the sky research that a company would never pursue if they had to foot the entire cost of it.
I wouldn't say it's a bad investment. Bringing in research and related jobs is the stepping stone from being a low skilled economy to highly skilled one. Jobs that require a specific skill set are almost always filled by transplants. If you want highly skilled workers you have to cast a bigger net. Google doesn't rely on the local workforce in Mountain View, California. However those workers who move there are making and spending money in the local economy. More people isn't a bad thing if they're employed. More people also means more money being spent, more taxes being collected, more investment, better schools, more money for roads, and eventually more representation in Congress. It's a much more far sighted approach.
SC's proportion of high skilled workers to 'low' skilled worker is similar to other states. We have a smaller number of 'high skilled' workers than a state like NC but we also have less people total. There are more 'low skill' people living in NC and GA than in SC, and they have a higher number of people unemployed and/or living in poverty.
The reason we need more money for schools and roads, etc is because all the transplants moving in, more wear and tear on the roads, more kids to educate, etc. In my view, it would be better to create jobs for the poor SC residents who don't want to move away for work, because we get the corporate taxes, but more people won't be moving here and straining our roads and schools, etc.
I don't think it is a good use of SC resident's tax dollars to 'create' jobs that are mostly filled by affluent and middle class non-residents who could find work in other states, and use SC tax dollars to help corporations make a profit.
Many of the jobs in SC that are labeled 'low skill' actually required at least a 4 year degree from a tech school like Trident Tech. There are some, not most, but some liberal arts people who look down their nose at jobs that require a vocational degree. I would argue that vocational degrees are more challenging and can often lead to higher salaries.
There is nothing wrong with 'low skilled' jobs in general, every state has people who don't have a great resume, and low skilled work is still important and needs to be done to support the business objectives of companies.
The 'better' schools thing is based on the notion that we have bad teachers in our schools. It has more to do with the students, who would be failing at any school in the country. You will find a higher number of failing schools in more populated states like CA and NY even though there are also more 'high skill' jobs in those states than SC.
Last edited by ClemVegas; 05-23-2016 at 01:32 PM..
I think in many instances, a company would have invested the total amount if there was not government match available, so SC taxpayers could be paying for research that corporations could pay for in its entirety and still remain profitable.
SC's proportion of high skilled workers to 'low' skilled worker is similar to other states. We have a smaller number of 'high skilled' workers than a state like NC but we also have less people total. There are more 'low skill' people living in NC and GA than in SC, and they have a higher number of people unemployed and/or living in poverty.
The reason we need more money for schools and roads, etc is because all the transplants moving in, more wear and tear on the roads, more kids to educate, etc. In my view, it would be better to create jobs for the poor SC residents who don't want to move away for work, because we get the corporate taxes, but more people won't be moving here and straining our roads and schools, etc.
I don't think it is a good use of SC resident's tax dollars to 'create' jobs that are mostly filled by affluent and middle class non-residents who could find work in other states, and use SC tax dollars to help corporations make a profit.
Many of the jobs in SC that are labeled 'low skill' actually required at least a 4 year degree from a tech school like Trident Tech. There are some, not most, but some liberal arts people who look down their nose at jobs that require a vocational degree. I would argue that vocational degrees are more challenging and can often lead to higher salaries.
There is nothing wrong with 'low skilled' jobs in general, every state has people who don't have a great resume, and low skilled work is still important and needs to be done to support the business objectives of companies.
The 'better' schools thing is based on the notion that we have bad teachers in our schools. It has more to do with the students, who would be failing at any school in the country. You will find a higher number of failing schools in more populated states like CA and NY even though there are also more 'high skill' jobs in those states than SC.
I think you're looking at it all wrong. Attracting middle and upper class investment is a good thing for the economy as a whole as in "a rising tide lifts all ships". On the other hand, I never understood why the chronically unemployed continue to live in dumpy has been towns that have no hope for the future.
I don't believe SC has bad teachers. Realistically education is product in, product out. If you have middle and upper class students, you'll end up with middle and upper class adults when they grow older. State education is just a scapegoat when people are surprised farmer's kids don't end up as hedge fund managers when they get older.
You can look at DC for example. A lot of white collar jobs and rich people but the inner city has poverty as bad as anywhere else, and a lot of 'bad' schools.
I agree that the poor should be willing to move but we can't do much about that part of it. I think that if we are going to use tax dollars to create jobs, it should be geared at poor residents, not creating jobs for affluent non-residents of the state, while at the same time helping corporations make profits, profits they don't share with the taxpayers in SC.
But I look at it terms of there are a lot of states with a lot less white collar jobs than SC. It seems like it would better to encourage companies with white collar jobs to locate in those states first, and spread out our population some. I'd rather SC citieds not become a bunch of CHarlottes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
