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.
It’s hard to be without bias, so let me put mine out here first. I was born and raised in Michigan and would like to move back to Michigan some day. I am not happy to see Michigan experiencing the decline that it has and is. So I guess my bias is that I may be guilty of “confirmation bias” in that I may look for information that confirms my bias…which is that I want to see things get better for the state. So being aware of that bias, hopefully I can mitigate it and be more objective.
With that said, I am going to buck the trend and say that within the next 20 years, Michigan will be one of the top 10 states in terms of population and job growth. My reasoning is this. Union wages are going to be busted. Unions may continue to exist, but the high wages will not. That will be the fallout from the economic upheaval that we are experiencing now and have not even yet become full blown (but it will). Michigan will essentially be just like the “right to work” states and there will no longer be an advantage to relocate away from union and their high wages and benefits, to states with cheaper labor. So the playing field will be leveled out in that respect which will eliminate some of the "Push" factors that has driven jobs away.
In addition to the reduction of wages is the fact that this economic crisis will kill the belief that a service economy can replace a strong production/manufacturing economy. We need to build stuff for domestic consumption as well as export, to reduce our trade deficit. The trade deficit simply amounts to a transfer of wealth from America to other nations. All the great economies are export driven and all the weak economies run deficits in trade and have massive debt because of it. When this nation finally “gets it” it will realize that the percentage of our economy that is manufacturing needs to increase to make up for what we have been importing and to create the needed excess for export. No other state has the existing infrastructure and idle capacity for new manufacturing than does Michigan. However, it will not happen until there is a massive reduction in us wages, which will come from inflation, as opposed to nominal pay decreases.
The last factor is certainly not least and that is fresh water. Fresh water is becoming as vital a resource as oil. I posted an article in another thread that stated the growing shortages of fresh water around the world and what that portend for business and residence. Water has always been a major force driving human population dynamics and location. Of course, Michigan is surrounded by one of the largest fresh water supplies on the planet. This will become a major benefit to the state in the coming years that will inspire businesses and people to relocate to the state.
In light of all this……..Michigan is well positioned for the future. However, I am not ready to move back just yet.
Water probably won't be the biggest selling point here. Although we are surrounded by water, we don't have the cleanest water in the nation. Desalination is getting cheaper & cheaper which means costal states will get their own water. Only places like Nebraska, Arizona, etc may inquire about getting imported water. Water won't be as valuable as oil, because water is getting cheaper & easier to clean/process than it ever has. BTW Michigan isn't one of the largest, it IS the largest area surrounded by fresh water.
Green energy will most likely be what pulls Michigan out of it's slump but it's going to be a while waiting for that to happen.(10-15, possibly 20yrs)
You can go to Detroit and get a 100 houses for $100 however so if you're into real estate with enough money you should be able to buy out half the state lol
Plus there's no reason to have Michigan as the top populated state, why? so we can have it look like NYC and have the place dumped on with garbage?, no thanks! Lower taxes, make it more attractive for businesses to set-up shop here and enjoy the nice increase in job growth/budget rebalancing.
Green energy will most likely be what pulls Michigan out of it's slump but it's going to be a while waiting for that to happen.(10-15, possibly 20yrs)
I don't think "green energy" is going to pull anyone out of a slump unless it is a profitable business, and not simply a government-subsidized program.
It would make for a nice story... we leave a smaller carbon footprint and save the economy too!! But I don't think it's based in reality.
"Dirty Energy" is much more economical than Green Energy. Sure, we can start to create government-mandated Green Energy, but someone ultimately has to pay for it (us). It might help save the planet, but I don't think it will help us economically. Unless Green Energy becomes RADICALLY less expensive and more efficient than it is now.
It's a matter of seen vs unseen. On the surface, it's easy to say "look at these new jobs." What is less apparent is that taxpayers will pay MORE to create the jobs than anyone will actually get back in wages from the new jobs.
That's the problem with the "Green Economy" theory, IMO. I would love for our society to be as green as possible, but I don't think we can claim that it will help us economically.
End of rant. Probably doesn't belong in this thread, but I couldn't help it!
I don't think "green energy" is going to pull anyone out of a slump unless it is a profitable business, and not simply a government-subsidized program.
It would make for a nice story... we leave a smaller carbon footprint and save the economy too!! But I don't think it's based in reality.
"Dirty Energy" is much more economical than Green Energy. Sure, we can start to create government-mandated Green Energy, but someone ultimately has to pay for it (us). It might help save the planet, but I don't think it will help us economically. Unless Green Energy becomes RADICALLY less expensive and more efficient than it is now.
It's a matter of seen vs unseen. On the surface, it's easy to say "look at these new jobs." What is less apparent is that taxpayers will pay MORE to create the jobs than anyone will actually get back in wages from the new jobs.
That's the problem with the "Green Economy" theory, IMO. I would love for our society to be as green as possible, but I don't think we can claim that it will help us economically.
End of rant. Probably doesn't belong in this thread, but I couldn't help it!
I think a lot depends on how much other countries adopt "green" policies. If China decides they want to be the "greenest" country on the planet, that's a lot of demand. And there are a lot of manufacturing skills here for green technologies that are not present or cheap in China. They're also not cheap in European countries. China can't even make good simple steel stamping and injection molding dies.
I think a lot depends on how much other countries adopt "green" policies. If China decides they want to be the "greenest" country on the planet, that's a lot of demand. And there are a lot of manufacturing skills here for green technologies that are not present or cheap in China. They're also not cheap in European countries. China can't even make good simple steel stamping and injection molding dies.
I hadn't really considered the idea of exporting "green technology" to someplace like China, but you're right, that is an example of how it could be a legitimate boost to the economy here.
I don't think "green energy" is going to pull anyone out of a slump unless it is a profitable business, and not simply a government-subsidized program.
It would make for a nice story... we leave a smaller carbon footprint and save the economy too!! But I don't think it's based in reality.
"Dirty Energy" is much more economical than Green Energy. Sure, we can start to create government-mandated Green Energy, but someone ultimately has to pay for it (us). It might help save the planet, but I don't think it will help us economically. Unless Green Energy becomes RADICALLY less expensive and more efficient than it is now.
It's a matter of seen vs unseen. On the surface, it's easy to say "look at these new jobs." What is less apparent is that taxpayers will pay MORE to create the jobs than anyone will actually get back in wages from the new jobs.
That's the problem with the "Green Economy" theory, IMO. I would love for our society to be as green as possible, but I don't think we can claim that it will help us economically.
End of rant. Probably doesn't belong in this thread, but I couldn't help it!
"Dirty Energy" also used to be very expensive(no infrastructure was available right away) and a lot of times dangerous to workers health and people living in close proximity to the plants.
This isn't going to happen over-night(which is why we're looking at 10-20yrs depending on how serious the people and the local gov take it)
I also don't want to see lame subsidy programs for companies that don't even produce anything(see farming subsidies), however in order to even get a subsidy there should many strings attached to it.
I don't see green energy as some feel-good, novelty technology, but a highly profitable business enterprise, that could put A LOT of skilled workers back to work.
I pretty much have to leave the state for months at a time(6-8+ months) just to make good money(Michigan gets no taxes from me, their loss), however if Michigan would start seriously taking up green energy as a viable business opportunity I, and many others could actually stay and work here(and in return get good tax money from us) and make a decent living and could pull Michigan out of this slump.
Michigan water is pretty clean. Cleaner than many (most?) places.
The Detroit metro water system has the cleanest water of any municipality and they draw out of the Detroit River. The Detroit river is the cleanest that it has been since the 1930s.
Desalinization is nto only expensive, it requires monumental amounts of energy. The places that have them in the US run them only during emergencies. (There is one in santa Barbara CA). What they really need to do to make them practical is build a small nuclear power plant next to the Desal plant and dedicate the nuke plant to provide power only for desalinization. theat would solve the power problem, but not the cost problem.
You had beeter be careful about the tax thing. For several years all of my income came from California, but I lived here. I still had to pay some Michigan income tax even though California got most of it.
Nah, I'm never here long enough be considered a taxable resident. I am here maybe a month or 2 max and I am out doing work elsewhere. It'd be nice to be able to stay here, but I can go out of state and get paid $11 to wash dishes(with a low cost-of-living) I stick with constrcution however and just go wherever there is work(which is slow everywhere right now, but much better other places than here).
Like I said hopefully MI turns it around so I can stay here for good eventually, but until then, I am not looking to be here other than short stints to visit family & friends.
Desalination is expensive currently, but new technology is making it cheaper & cheaper which is great for the coastal states, especially ones that don't have much fresh water inland.
I agree we should go nuclear also. It's got a bad rap, just the word "Nuclear" freaks people out even though it has nothing to do with weapons or any such thing and the infrastructures are very secure. A 3-mile island type scenario nowadays would be very hard to do.
I agree we should go nuclear also. It's got a bad rap, just the word "Nuclear" freaks people out even though it has nothing to do with weapons or any such thing and the infrastructures are very secure. A 3-mile island type scenario nowadays would be very hard to do.
I take issue with that! Fcrewups are always easy to achieve. And I disagree completely that nuclear energy is in some way "clean" -- it doesn't add to the smog problem but the used core rods remain poisonous for generations. I think finding greener ways to generate, save, and not in the first place require energy is much more promising, and not just for Michigan. If we become leaders here Michigan will really be getting somewhere. I stand by my earlier suggestion of putting citizens on treadmills and Gilligan-power bikes to generate the nation's electricity. If you want AFDC you spend 6 hours a day on that bike, lady. Go ahead and watch Oprah at the same time.
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.
so if you're into real estate with enough money you should be able to buy out half the state lol
I stick with constrcution however and just go wherever there is work(which is slow everywhere right now, but much better other places than here).
