|
columnists
for this publication but even a news article and a
column from the Richmond Times Dispatch –
so maybe it is real.
In
our own column on the subject, as well as in our
previous endeavors, we have made the case that not
only is this linkage between new ideas and a
strong economy applicable to Richmond
but it also fits the circumstances of much of
rural Virginia. This
belief springs from our past experiences of
traveling around the state carrying either the
banner of state government or that of workforce
development programs intended to create a
sufficient pool of trained workers that can be
used as bait to attract new investment into the
region in question.
Our
findings can be boiled down to a few principles.
First, not everyone is trainable and not
every area can even find enough qualified trainers
to have a chance at creating a sufficient body of
folks with the latest and greatest skills.
Therefore it is hard to “home grow” a
critical mass of the type of workforce that will
knock a company’s socks off and make them want
to move to a given area.
Second,
workforce is not the only, or in many cases, even
the determining factor in whether a company
chooses to locate in a given area.
A huge factor is the presence or absence of
what we call “amenities.”
A starter
list would include good
restaurants, decent theatres that show first-run
movies of something better than “Giant
Bug-Eating Armadillo” quality, other evidence of
a vibrant local arts program, churches that have
evolved past fire and brimstone and that have
great youth programs, excellent K-12 programs
(excellence defined as something more than just
passing SOL scores), affordable and easily
attainable high-bandwidth Internet access, decent
cell phone coverage, and a true appreciation for
diversity in the local culture.
Third,
companies are way ahead of Dr. Florida --
although, we concede, he does an excellent job of
describing actual practice -- and way ahead of
most local governments and economic developers in
recognizing that such amenities attract the
workers, especially higher level workers such as
engineers, financial types, and general managers,
which don’t magically appear through
“workforce training” programs.
If
these things be true – and they are – then it
is ever so much easier for company executives to
send themselves or their colleagues into a region,
and easier to conclude that they will be able to
actually sign the young people they recruit to
come manage and work in the plant.
The new rule of thumb, as Florida points
out, is not that workers attract companies but
that companies attract the workers, and companies
can do so because they carefully locate in places
that are “cool,” i.e., have a creative,
entrepreneurial climate that produces sufficient
amenities to add a high quality of life to the
local scene.
We
well remember from our collective past experience
how Eastman Kodak Company, headquartered in
Rochester, New York, an area not distinguished for
its balmy climate and sunny skies, strongly
supported local arts and cultural programs and
even gave up some prime downtown land on which the
city could build an upgraded stadium for the local
AAA baseball team.
Locked in a competitive death struggle with
companies both domestic and foreign for a strong
position in the emerging digital imaging market,
supporting and enhancing local amenities was a
small price for Kodak to pay in order to improve
their chances of successfully recruiting the top
talent they needed in Rochester.
What
has all this to do with the plight of poor, little
East Bugsmash
as it struggles to attract some company to replace
the 300 $7.50 per hour jobs it lost when the sock
factory moved overseas?
At its heart, the principles outlined above
mean that ol' Bugsmash will have to undertake some
big changes to have a chance at economic recovery.
Earlier
articles on the subject have pointed that regions
seeking to advance economically need to be
prepared to not only tolerate but celebrate
software engineers with nose rings and the gay
couple that opens an art gallery, but we can see
how that might be too big a first step for some
conservative rural areas.
We’d like to propose an idea that is both
“doable” and has high potential payoff:
Why not welcome and pay some positive
attention to the retirees and other newcomers in
your midst?
Instead
of pigeonholing retirees as “come-heres” or
“came-backs,”
thus, presumably, of lesser value,
recognize that these people may well have played a
significant role in building the very kind of
economically successful communities that Bugsmash
is striving to become. There’s a reason that
they had the money to come to Bugsmash and buy a
nice piece of land and build that nice home.
They have been there and done that.
Retirees,
not all of whom look forward to a life of bingo
and shuffleboard, often have the knowledge, time
and interest to help build an arts program, teach
at a local college, help a school district bolster
its standing, and advise on how to build a more
diverse local culture.
They are not radicals.
They likely came to Bugsmash because they
appreciate the values and benefits of the rural
lifestyle. If
an area is serious about economic
development, it needs to tap whatever expertise is
available.
The
old formulas and approaches just aren’t working.
We’ve seen evidence of that all over the
Commonwealth, and Rich Florida has documented it
all over the country.
Does rural
Virginia
really want economic growth?
Or do local leaders enjoy playing victim so
much they just can’t give it up?
The scorecard is straightforward: dollars
of new investment in industries with long-term
growth potential. Maybe
the number of nose rings counted on the town
sidewalks is a leading indicator. How is your
region doing?
--
February 24, 2003
|
