Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
As an aside, Time Magazine is doing an interesting series on the decline and fall of Detroit - it's probably a worthy read for all involved, as it looks like they're doing a pretty good job.
Starts here.
And an interesting way to look at growth, from a blog post outlining the most recent unemployment figures:
Additionally, you can look at it like this: since 2000, about 60% of all job loss has been concentrated in Michigan. Of course, this ignores the large amounts of job growth that took place from 2000-2006ish around most of the country - but it's still a useful exercise. In many ways, this is a single-state depression amidst a nation-wide recession.
We can go around and around about why it happened, but that's a pretty stark number - again, though, that number happened for a reason, because of decisions that were made and trends that were ignored, mismanaged or misread. It's sad all around, and important to look at seriously and objectively, to keep it from happening in other places/industries. |
But can it be stopped from happening other places?
It seems to me that it would be very hard to externally impose restrictions that would protect a state or city from what happened here. (Or maybe just that if that level of restriction were imposed it might be hard for companies to be profitable.)
I certainly hope that industries or individual companies would learn from this, but we expect them to act in self-interested ways and I'm not sure the ways a region could protect itself will be all that compatible with how a company can protect itself.
For example, a region might want to make sure it wasn't almost exclusively dependent on one industry. But individual companies might seem benefit in clustering geographically. It wouldn't make that much sense to me to limit the presence of a potential employer. Sure, you could create incentives for other industries to come in, but that's probably easier said than done. Certainly, it's important to attempt it.
Threaded Mode
