(Very well said – promoted by JulieWaters)
I originally intended to send this directly (and privately) to Deb Markowitz but have decided instead to do so through GMD because I think the subject warrants discussion.
Deb
In your Nov. 18 Free Press op-ed, you said “As governor I will work tirelessly to bring good jobs to Vermont.” (emphasis added)
To some extent, this is standard campaign speak that merits no special comment. However, it is a phrase with a literal meaning that has found its way into common parlance through repeated use by (almost) all candidates and elected officials.
It is used to justify certain policies that are ineffective and wasteful. And as a result, it diverts attention and resources from more sensible approaches to economic development.
The notion that the state can “bring good jobs to Vermont” is predicated on the assumption that a significant number of businesses are moving from state to state based on favorable tax treatment (among other things). Unfortunately, this received wisdom is not supported by the evidence. Indeed, the number of net jobs gained or lost from interstate moves is negligible as a percentage of all jobs created or destroyed.
Suggesting (even indirectly) that VT should use tax policy to encourage more businesses to locate here reflects and feeds the Trickle Down mantra we’ve been fed for a quarter century. Advocates of this failed approach have succeeded in poisoning the discourse about economic development because no elected official wants to be branded as anti-business.
But one can be pro-jobs without buying into this calculated and misleading tripe.
So while I’m projecting a bit because I don’t know exactly how you meant it, I hope that you will not reinforce the idea that jobs are to be purchased with tax breaks and incentives. Voters need to be told the truth and those who perpetuate such myths for their own self-interest need to be exposed.
In my view, the campaign for governor is an opportunity to break with the past and speak honestly with Vermonters. I hope you (and the other Dem candidates) will do just that.
language matters. She may have meant ‘job creation’ but it’s vitally important that we don’t do anything to perpetuate the myth that with policy change jobs can magically be moved (brought) from other states in a significant way.
A while ago you posted some solid data here to refute (the broadly repeated) notion that jobs are leaving the state for greener (tax) pastures. Can you post that link again? If I remember correctly it showed that only something like 4% of new jobs created are the result of interstate moves?
Ms. M’s campaign rhetoric rings as hollow as ever. What amazes me is these candidates sit on these ideas until they are elected? If you have these ideas, why not work with groups now to get the measures moving? Lord knows we need “good jobs”. What are you waiting for? Lead by example. In reality though, we all know it’s just bluster. So until you have a concrete idea and the people in mind to get it done, please don’t throw this empty balony out there.
You make a good point. I doubt Deb was calling for undercutting the marketplace by “bringing” jobs here at any cost, but was rather talking about a plan to strengthen our economy to create a better environment for business success. Hopefully she will have a chance to define the distinction. Too often politicians talk in sound bite phrases because that’s what the public seems to want, but we should expect more. I struggle with that approach as I watch our political discourse get more polarized, and hear politicians (and the public) talk in absolute terms, and embrace inflammatory rhetoric as the standard. That movement is terribly dangerous to our democracy.
Offering massive incentives and tax breaks to lure a business helps drive down wages, and doesn’t always result in any positive gain for the state. The competition between states, regions, and countries to convince businesses to relocate will only work as long as there isn’t a cheaper option elsewhere, and it leaves a decimated workforce in its wake.
Take a look at http://www.allbusiness.com/tre… It’s a story about a Dell computer plant in North Carolina that is just four years old, and is already closing because Dell is facing financial troubles and will be moving operations to cheaper locations. This plant was granted hundreds of millions of dollars in incentives, but the jobs didn’t last, and the hoped for benefits didn’t materialize. Some of the incentives will be recovered, but the damage to workforce wages will never be reversed.
It’s been my impression that incubating small companies and creating a climate in which they can grow is a far better way to build a job base. Companies that grow here will be less likely to leave when times get tough, or when they achieve success. We have a number of solid examples of locally developed companies in Vermont, and should be constantly reaching out to see what holds them here, and what challenges might drive them away.
We should also remember that the engine for job growth is small companies, not massive multinational corporations, and our state should help these small businesses to prosper. There are a number of things that can be done through regulatory relief to make the task of managing a small business easier, without sacrificing tax revenue or hurting workers. Unfortunately, the buzz phrase “regulatory relief” is often code for cutting unemployment benefits, or slashing worker compensation programs, both of which hurt workers…we need candidates that understand the challenges of those programs (and others), yet respect their importance to the workforce.
I think we also need candidates that can speak to other issues, such as healthcare, from the perspective of cost containment and benefit to business. Too often we talk about the social benefits of providing health care to everybody, but there are real economic benefits to a single payer style program that can drive down costs within the medical industry and business community, and serve everybody including business owners who are now being strangled by these unsustainable costs.
I’d like to hear issues discussed by the candidates with more nuance, and I’d like to get a sense of how each balances the needs of business and workforce. It’s not easy.
No argument from me, tax preferences for industrial jobs don’t work. Please note, however, that tax preferences for jobs that can’t move often are wildly successful. Northern New England’s dependence upon the Education and Health Care sectors of the economy are what’s keeping our unemployment rates at 60% of the national average. The vast majority of these institutions are government funded or non-profit, and thus untaxed. This is a huge tax advantage for hospitals, to name one industry.
We can also make sure that all towns in Vermont have
Widespread fast internet
Available power
Well staffed and successful schools
Well maintained roads
All of these are done with tax dollars and the new governor should make sure that we do the things that allow businesses to grow without choosing ones to give specific tax breaks to.
My republican friends (yes, I break bread with the enemy on occasion) would also point out that it’s much easier to be doctrinaire on this issue if you live in Burlington, Rutland, Middlebury, Bennington…you get the point, all places where moving jobs across the state line doesn’t matter. Those of us near the NH border see the direct effect of various policies; for example, there are at least 5 industrial park/business incubators in NH border towns, none that I can think of on the VT side. Of course, we collect income taxes from the VT workers who find jobs across the border…but if the take is too high, they will find a house on the other side of the river. And NH gets the corporate profits tax, which is quite high (8%). There are only so many golden eggs in any given goose. The new governor needs to understand that reality as well.
Gee the attacks start on Markowitz already.
Talk about appealing to reason. Your mincing of words is ridiculous. I want a governor that wants to create good jobs to Vermont instead of retail jobs paying minimum wage.
And of course you make this an “Oped” by Deb. Actually, it was the BFP that pulled lines from previous statements.
Taking one phrase to mean selling out to corporate interests for tax credits is incredulous and unfair.
And if it wasn’t about politics and calling one specific candidate out, then why didn’t you send it to Deb privately?
You wrote what I was thinking. I would imagine that Deb and the rest of the field would be glad of a little well-directed chiding to keep them on message. There has been much grumbling about the candidates sounding too much alike; but I, for one would be disappointed if they weren’t all somewhat in the same ball-park at this point. After all, doesn’t it just say that they have been listening to the voters. Of course, we want them to mean what they say; but the best way to know what they MEAN is to draw them out on statements that we find worrisome, as Doug has done here
No politician is going to bring good jobs to Vermont unless they figure out how to make the jobs that are already here “good-paying?” So many jobs in Vermont barely pay a minimum wage, much less a livable one. And what about finding ways to create and expand more jobs here than sending them over to Asia, like GOP has been doing since the Reagan years, or offering massive tax breaks to companies that will move as soon as they find a better tax rate elsewhere.
And to bring good jobs in the state you have to have good infrastructure, like health care, and roads that do not damage the front end every time you pass over them.
Real jobs are created only by innovation. Innovation – a new vaccine, a green energy source, etc., really does add wealth to society.
Both our political parties are committed to the idea that redistribution creates wealth.
The right has spun a masterful lie, which is that any successful business creates wealth. In fact, if you stop mowing your lawn yourself, and hire someone to do it, there is no net wealth added to society. It’s the same with elder care. We used to take care of our parents ourselves. Now, we hire someone. No net gain.
The left just says that the right redistributes wealth wrong, not that it’s spinning illustion.
So, the right grabs and holds on. The left demands a share of what it recovers for us.
Both sides end up squashing innovation. Innovation always begins with people pursuing ideas, not wealth.
That’s what has changed in America. The right has succeeded in convincing many people that all good things come from greed.
We can’t fix things by being greed lite, or by building an obstructionist bureaucracy.
What we have got to do is get back to the basic values that built this country. The founders believed in ideas, and that’s what gave us the chance to do so much. Greed has brought us back to a point where foreign kings endanger our freedom. Our economy is a shell of what it was, because greed overtook ideas and hard work.
Until we are ready to go toe to toe with the right on basic moral issues, greed will continue to consume us from the inside.