The Future of the Rust Belt Depends on Its Youth

[M II A II R II K]

The Future of the Rust Belt Depends on Its Youth


NOV 22, 2017

By MIMI KIRK

Read More: https://www.citylab.com/solutions/20...-youth/546467/

PDF Report: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/...s-states_4.pdf

.....

Though the region has long been synonymous with post-industrial decay and an aging, shrinking workforce, it can recover. But its salvation won’t come from luring in those much-sought-after new younger workers that cities are always vying for: The secret for success is investing in the kids who already live there.

- Such investment is particularly important because the Great Lakes region’s residents are older than the rest of the country—and its current younger residents (as well as immigrants) often prefer to head to greener economic pastures on the coasts as soon as possible. As more workers retire in the coming 10 to 15 years, the states will need young people to replace them—as well as fill new jobs. While the industrial posts of yesteryear aren’t coming back, related employment, such as chemical manufacturing and the production of precision metals, is on the rise and requires technical training.

- Research shows that early experiences significantly impact a child’s ability to learn, as well as to develop social skills, resilience, and self-regulation—competencies that affect long-term social and economic well-being. Home visits, in which professionals guide low-income or otherwise at-risk parents on issues such as care and parenting techniques, aid in a child’s development, as do high-quality preschool programs. The return on investment in these endeavors is high. Attending a high-quality preschool, for instance, increases the likelihood that a child will graduate from high school, attend college or secure steady employment, and earn higher wages.

The report highlights five areas that state and local leaders, as well as philanthropic organizations and the private sector, can focus on to support economic mobility for young people, especially those who are low-income and of color:

• High-quality preschools and home visiting programs.

• Reading fluency by the third grade.

• Smoothing the transition from high school to higher education or the workforce.

• Reducing criminal and juvenile justice involvement.

• Meeting the basic needs of low-income families.

.....

[bnk]

The future of the Rust Belt is the end of the derogatory term Rust Belt all together and think of it in a different light.

Fucking coastal elitists

[the urban politician]

Rust belt needs to be turned into a sexy term. Like old, dirty jeans—now those are hip and sexy!

[skyscraperpage17]

The Rust Belt doesn't value its youth.

If it did, the populace wouldn't have let their urban cores go to shit, actively work to diversify their economies and invest in critical infrastructure such as extensive rapid transit.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

The Rust Belt doesn't value its youth.

If it did, the populace wouldn't have let their urban cores go to shit, actively work to diversify their economies and invest in critical infrastructure such as extensive rapid transit.

Didn’t most of the country fail to do this?

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Didn’t most of the country fail to do this?

No.

The BOS-DC corridor, West Coast and deep south (Georgia, Texas, Tennessee, Florida, North Carolina, etc.) are all doing the right things. That's why these places have become huge draws for America's youth.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

No.

The BOS-DC corridor, West Coast and deep south (Georgia, Texas, Tennessee, Florida, North Carolina, etc.) are all doing the right things. That's why these places have become huge draws for America's youth.

You said 1. Didn’t let their urban cores go to shit, 2. Diversify their economies, and 3. Extensively invest in transit

Pretty much the south never had 1 and never did 3

The east coast did a decent, but not perfect job of all 3

The west coast, like the south, hardly had 1 and hardly did 3, except for LA

I’m not denying that rustbelt cities were partly to blame for the situation they are presently in, (midwesterners really abandoned their central cities and it’s quite a sad thing), but let’s not pretend that other regions should be patting themselves on the back for outstanding foresight and planning. I think the chips kind of just fell the way they did due to more macroeconomic/socioeconomic reasons.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

You said 1. Didn’t let their urban cores go to shit, 2. Diversify their economies, and 3. Extensively invest in transit

Pretty much the south never had 1 and never did 3

The east coast did a decent, but not perfect job of all 3

The west coast, like the south, hardly had 1 and hardly did 3, except for LA

I’m not denying that rustbelt cities were partly to blame for the situation they are presently in, (midwesterners really abandoned their central cities and it’s quite a sad thing), but let’s not pretend that other regions should be patting themselves on the back for outstanding foresight and planning. I think the chips kind of just fell the way they did due to more macroeconomic/socioeconomic reasons.

Atlanta, Miami, Houston and Dallas have much better transit systems than most of the Rust Belt cities (with exception given to Chicago and maybe Pittsburgh). In fact, Houston and Dallas are currently in the process of significantly expanding their systems.

And yes, the east coast didn't do a perfect job, but they did a good enough job which is all that matters.

As far as the West Coast, Seattle and San Francisco for sure (maybe Portland too? not certain) have much better transit systems than the Rust Belt cities besides Chicago and maybe Pittsburgh.

And I'm not sure what you mean by the cities on the West Coast and in the Deep South not having #1.

EDIT: I think your last paragraph is an excuse. Cities in the Rust Belt have simply failed to do what's necessary to compete with these other cities. There's no one to blame but themselves for that.

[the urban politician]

^ Everybody is investing in transit now, of course. Hell, St Louis, Cincy, and Milwaukee are building streetcar lines. St Louis already has had a light rail line for a long time.

And San Francisco? Their transit systems were built a long, long time ago.

I just don’t think this has much to do with why the “rust belt” has suffered.

Do you really think a young person moves to Houston due to its light rail system?

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Everybody is investing in transit now, of course. Hell, St Louis, Cincy, and Milwaukee are building streetcar lines. St Louis already has had a light rail line for a long time.

And San Francisco? Their transit systems were built a long, long time ago.

I just don’t think this has much to do with why the “rust belt” has suffered.

Do you really think a young person moves to Houston due to its light rail system?

It's a part of the entire package. The whole "draw" is the fact that you're living in a town that's forward-thinking enough to engage in things such as regional cooperation to build healthy cores, investment in critical infrastructure and not putting their eggs in one basket for economic prosperity.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

EDIT: I think your last paragraph is an excuse. Cities in the Rust Belt have simply failed to do what's necessary to compete with these other cities. There's no one to blame but themselves for that.

I’m not making an excuse. I just view cities as fluid. They are places, I’m not personifying them like you appear to be doing. Half of Arizona is Chicagoans right now. People screw up, people move depending on macroeconomic trends, climate, etc. it has happened throughout human history. I think it’s rather short-sighted to blame a location for its particular set of circumstances.

It’s like blaming Dallas for not having a huge prewar built environment. Well, duh—we all know why that is the case. And there is obviously no point in blaming Dallas for that.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

It's a part of the entire package. The whole "draw" is the fact that you're living in a town that's forward-thinking enough to engage in things such as regional cooperation to build healthy cores, investment in critical infrastructure and not putting their eggs in one basket for economic prosperity.

But that’s not unique. Much of the whole country has taken on to this trend.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I’m not making an excuse. I just view cities as fluid. They are places, I’m not personifying them like you appear to be doing. Half of Arizona is Chicagoans right now. People screw up, people move depending on macroeconomic trends, climate, etc. it has happened throughout human history. I think it’s rather short-sighted to blame a location for its particular set of circumstances.

It’s like blaming Dallas for not having a huge prewar built environment. Well, duh—we all know why that is the case. And it’s their is obviously no point in blaming Dallas for that.

I'm not blaming a location. I'm blaming the people (collectively) in said location for allowing their region to flounder and not taking steps to avoid it / improve.

[the urban politician]

^ Cool, I don’t disagree that the citizenry of Detroit, Cleveland, etc threw in the towel on their Center cities. I just don’t think they had as much a hand in things as larger, more macro trends like globalization, automation, weather, etc. I guess we probably won’t agree on this point

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

But that’s not unique. Much of the whole country has taken on to this trend.

Not really. With exception to Chicago and maybe Pittsburgh, the Rust Belt is still way too heavily dependent on manufacturing and the Auto Industry. They've been unable to successfully compete for most of the corporate expansions and relocations that have occurred in cities down south, on the west coast and the east coast.

As far as transit, in Detroit specifically, they voted down a measure in the past election that would have begun the process of establishing an extensive transit system. I'm also not aware of any major transit expansions in other Rust Belt cities, aside from a streetcar line or two (that's not real transit, sorry).

Concerning investment in urban cores, Rust Belt cities (Cleveland, St. Louis ad Detroit specifically) still suffer from ridiculous crime rates and high levels of poverty. There's some gentrification happening, but it pales in comparison to what's happening in other parts of the country.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Cool, I don’t disagree that the citizenry of Detroit, Cleveland, etc threw in the towel on their Center cities. I just don’t think they had as much a hand in things as larger, more macro trends like globalization, automation, weather, etc. I guess we probably won’t agree on this point

But if what you're suggesting were the case, cities such as Toronto and (to a somewhat lesser extent) Chicago would be in the same boat as the rest of the Rust Belt.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Rust belt needs to be turned into a sexy term. Like old, dirty jeans—now those are hip and sexy!

Step one would be cleaning up: Tear down all the old, rusting factories and abandoned buildings. Get rid of everything not used or reusable in the not-too-distant future. Get the place looking like a post-WW II built environment with a future.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Not really. With exception to Chicago and maybe Pittsburgh, the Rust Belt is still way too heavily dependent on manufacturing and the Auto Industry. They've been unable to successfully compete for most of the corporate expansions and relocations that have occurred in cities down south, on the west coast and the east coast.

It's within their hands: It's called "right to work". The cities "down south" (you are wrong about the west coast--all the auto plants there are closed or closing except Tesla for the same reasons as in the center of the country) have right to work laws and the plants are non-union. If the old industrial states changed their laws, the companies would build new plants there. And now might be a good time because Trump seems serious about NAFTA: Either it gets modified to require more US content in cars imported from Mexico or it may go altogether forcing the auto industry to relocate at least some production back to the US.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

It's within their hands: It's called "right to work". The cities "down south" (you are wrong about the west coast--all the auto plants there are closed or closing except Tesla for the same reasons as in the center of the country) have right to work laws and the plants are non-union. If the old industrial states changed their laws, the companies would build new plants there. And now might be a good time because Trump seems serious about NAFTA: Either it gets modified to require more US content in cars imported from Mexico or it may go altogether forcing the auto industry to relocate at least some production back to the US.

When I refer to corporate expansions and relocations, I'm not just talking about auto plants necessarily, but health care and financial organizations, IT companies, etc.

And getting more to my point, the Auto Industry is a mature and slowly dying industry. We've reached peak auto sales at this point, and many of the jobs will be automated over the next few decades. The fact that GM's exiting the world and Chrysler is now nothing more than a foreign subsidiary that only exists in name proves this. If the Rust Belt were serious about its future, it would have been actively taking steps to become far less dependent on the Auto Industry (as well as its support industries / businesses).

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

When I refer to corporate expansions and relocations, I'm not just talking about auto plants necessarily, but health care and financial organizations, IT companies, etc.

I think there's an feeling on the part of many tech executives that now may be the time to get involved in reinvigorating the industrial center and the cities in question here. In other words, I think they'd like to go there. But a couple of things stand in the way. The same liberal impulses to "do good" that make them want to go there also make them concerned about some of the "values" legislation that is law in these states. They do not want to put a new facility anywhere only to have to threaten to close it over "bathroom laws" and such. So, again, it's something that's up to lawmakers in the areas we are talking about.

Also, there has to be some existing availability of a work force. I think the tech industry is willing to invest to a degree in training but they can't start from zero. So, as the beginning article suggested, the state universities and other institutions in these states need to do what they can to begin to get an IT workforce ready.