By all measures, Wisconsin’s economy seems to be in abysmal health. The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute recently published a number of articles, examining the depth of this problem. One article, which comprehensively examines our economic troubles, suggests a number of solutions. While some of these suggestions, such as forward thinking state investments (i.e. not investing in failing GM plants), make a lot of sense. However, the thrust of the article’s proposed solutions are tired pro-business cliches. Design the UW system around businesses, design a business and upper class friendly tax code, etc… The overall message being that we should be attracting rich people from other states, rather than building the wealth of the state’s current constituents.
A second article takes a similar tone, although it examines Wisconsin’s political and economic climate in a broader scope than the aforementioned article. The message here is that, if we are beating the other states, we are winning. But is a strong economy really defined in terms of how well it compares to its neighbors? Perhaps in a 20th Century mindset (post-World War II, pre-2008 Credit Crisis) this was the prevailing definition. However, this mindset clearly does not lead to the development of a sustainable economy. I’m not using “sustainable” in an environmental sense. I am using it to denote an economy which can sustain itself by producing wealth and continually bring forth economic opportunities and advances for those people engaged in said economy. Basing our economy completely around the wealth of other economies would be a mistake. Indeed, we have made this mistake before. I’m not trying to argue against an open interstate economy or free trade, but how well did it really serve us to rely on GM for manufacturing jobs? What will happen when the Biotechnology sector stops attracting funding to the UW-System? Can Wisconsin build a flexible economy that can adapt to a diversity of economic challenges? If so, what does this entail?
The difference, subtle as it may seem, between building an economy that attracts talent and wealth and building an economy by pandering to talent and wealth, is great. The former necessitates that we produce our own wealth and talent, to which others will be attracted. The later necessitates that we make ourselves a vessel for the wealth of others.
Why should Wisconsin focus on attracting out-of-state talent? Shouldn’t we be doing something about providing a better education for the people of Wisconsin? Why should we focus on brining in out-of-state business and funding? Isn’t the real test of economic power to produce our own wealth, rather than to ride the economic success of others?
Don’t misunderstand my question, I’m not trying to demean people from other states or countries. Part of what makes our University great is the talent that it attracts from other countries and states. Indeed, we should welcome immigration into our state at any chance we can. Diversity, as in nature, is a great asset to a culture and an economy. Nor should we take up the line of protectionism. If China wants to go through the industrial revolution at a blitzkrieg pace, let them. Our response should not be to try and keep old manufacturing jobs, which are our own relics of the industrial revolution, in state. Rather, we should take a moment and ask ourselves, what new jobs can be created? How can we repurpose our manufacturing capacity in a forward thinking manner? A perusing of any mildly intelligent news source provides dozens of ideas.
I meant for this post to address the role of a renewed education system in the future of Wisconsin’s economy, but clearly I won’t be able to make this a concise post while giving any mention to that topic. So, I will settle for raising the problem of our state’s economy.
The Isthmus recently illuminated Wisconsin’s reluctance and inability to work for federal money. Although I just raised the problem of basing our economic recovery on federal subsidies and out-of-state talent, we clearly need some help in getting back on our feet in the first place. A wise use of federal subsidies would be the establishment of industries that will eventually sustain themselves. This approach is already being put into use on campus.
However, it is not enough to simply create more University-centric industries. Or rather, Wisconsin will not be able to build a sustainable economy if it only creates industries, and thus jobs and economic growth, in the towns of major UW-System facilities. In particular, it would be all too easy to ride a variety of technology booms in Dane county, leaving the northern half of the state to languish in poverty. The UW-System might be a great aid in the economic recovery of the state, so long as we remember that the state border extends beyond the Dane county line.
auf Wiedersehen,
Karl