OK
let’s start out with this: it has nothing to do with the weather. Or even the perception of the weather. One
person’s chaff is another’s wheat, you might say. So to all those regional crepe-hangers who
claim Pittsburgh’s growth is held back by its weather, I say “you need to get
out more”. Do you think higher growth
locales like Chicago, Minneapolis or Boston have better weather? Really?
OK. Now let’s get serious.
I
still believe Pittsburgh and the Tri-State region’s job creation woes can be
helped with more, better, increased, and improved education of its
citizens. For this piece allow me to
present empirical evidence based on anecdotal reports, with a nod to a couple
statistics.
In
Part 1 of this commentary I referenced the “Tribune Review” article that featured
a Fayette County resident working as a part-time supermarket cashier. The gentleman is 20 years old and has already
moved back to Fayette County after trying his job luck in Orlando, FL where he
found he couldn’t make ends meet even in that high growth market. But now he’s thinking of moving back to
Orlando. Let’s not “pile on” when analyzing
this young man’s path however, at age 20, with no defined job skills and what
would seem to be no post high school degree, his prospects in Fayette County or
Orlando or just about any other economically integrated area on planet Earth
are severely limited. Changing locations
will solve little if anything long term.
Also
as mentioned in Part 1, the Uber Advanced Technology Center’s Director, John
Bares, is seeking dozens more staff members and is recruiting candidates from
California’s Bay Area. I imagine there
will be some resistance by residents of weather-perfect northern California over
a move to a less benign Great Lakes climate.
But notwithstanding the list of positive traits that Pittsburgh can
offer aside from climate, why, with over two dozen major colleges and
universities in the region producing thousands of graduates annually, does Mr.
Bares need to turn to California for staff?
The only answer is a disparity of skill levels but more specifically it
is clear Pittsburgh’s institutions are not educating enough residents with
skills needed in this economy.
My
final anecdote comes from Austin, TX, a city that Pittsburgh is getting a lot
of comparison with these days. In the
past year, Austin has seen thousands of high tech jobs created from companies
as diverse as Apple (which has over 1,000 employees and has announced another
2,300 more to be hired in the next 18 months), Home Depot [financial security
software development], General Motors (software jobs, not manufacturing),
Athena Health [medical software] and Conde Nast (again, software programming
for the publisher’s digital media). And
the reason cited by all these new entrants into Austin’s job market: the
availability of talent. Austin has a
fifth the number of higher education institutions that Pittsburgh does. But the University of Texas is a powerhouse
school with large programs in engineering, computer science and artificial
intelligence. And to say UT constantly churns
out graduates in those fields is putting it mildly.
So
here’s the statistical comparison set, and pardon that it’s a bit dated from
the 2010 US Census, specific to educational attainment for Pittsburgh’s and
Austin’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas (a large city and its surrounds that
are connected by employment numbers). In
2010 Pittsburgh’s MSA had 28.8% of its population with a bachelor’s degree or
higher. Austin’s MSA had 46.6% of its
population with bachelor degrees or higher.
Does education translate into economic success? I believe so. Using per capita income as one countermeasure,
US Census statistics for samples taken in 2013 have Austin’s MSA pegged at 21st
in the country with per capita income at $24,500. Pittsburgh is 90th with per capita income at
$20,900. In absolute dollar terms, not
huge, but as measured on the overall ranking, and when you account for the
nearly $4,000 per person difference across similarly sized metro areas of 2 million
plus people, the comparison of income levels is striking.
It’s
education. Period. As I finished this piece I had trouble
developing a summary paragraph. But
later in the day I read the following in the May/June 2016 issue of “Foreign
Affairs” magazine. With credit to Jacob
S. Hacker and Paul Pierson in their excellent article “Making America Great
Again: The Case for the Mixed Economy”, allow me to quote verbatim. “the most important thing that big states
[defined in their piece as “countries” not US “States”] started doing was
educating their citizens. More growth
commenced when people rapidly increased their ability to do more with
less. They were able to do more, in
part, because they knew more, and they knew more, in part, because they were
taught more.” QED.
No comments:
Post a Comment