The Cellar - View Single Post - PA's future

tw · 12-17-2003, 11:37 PM

The Brookings Institute performs an comprehensive analysis of the PA economy, its problems, and how it could address those issues. Most requires actions starting with the Governor. The current PA Governor has demonstrated ability to start such programs. Over the years, will he address these problems? Below are selected paragraphs, sentences, and phrases from that report at http://www.brook.edu/pennsylvania:

Nearly 80 percent of Pennsylvania’s residents were born and raised in the state.

• Pennsylvania is barely growing and it’s aging. During the 1990s, Pennsylvania garnered the third-slowest growth among states, as it grew by just 3.4 percent—or 400,000 residents. That growth at least improved on the declines and stasis of the 1970s and 80s. But the recovery remained anemic. Making these trends starker are the tepid population dynamics they mask. In the latter half of the 1990s the sixth-largest state experienced the fifth-largest net out-migration of residents, and the ninth-largest percentage loss of young people aged 25- to 34-years old in 2000. Meanwhile, the state added relatively few births and captured only modest immigration. Consequently, the Commonwealth now ranks second among states for its share of Americans over age 65. Pennsylvania lacks the vibrant population dynamics usually associated with flourishing economies.

Instead, the Commonwealth ranks near the bottom of states in employment growth. Pay lags behind both the nation and other Mid-Atlantic states. And while the state’s top-flight health care and education specialties flourish as the service sector grows, an unusually large percentage of the state’s workers (60 percent of them) toil in lower-pay jobs with wages of less than $27,000 per year. Darkening the prospects for a quick reinvention is Pennsylvania’s relatively low level of higher education. In 2000, only 22.4 percent of Pennsylvanians possessed a bachelor’s degree, compared to 24.4 percent nationwide. Although that number has been improving, the Commonwealth still ranks just 30th among the states on this key indicator—lower than all its neighbors but West Virginia and Ohio. Pennsylvania does not yet excel on this or other critical indices of competitiveness.

• Pennsylvania is barely growing
• The state is spreading out—and hollowing out
• The state’s transitioning economy is lagging

• Pennsylvania’s population is barely growing. Only North Dakota and West Virginia grew more slowly in the 1990s.

• The state is spreading out—and hollowing out. Population and jobs aren’t growing so much as shifting from close-in places to farther-out ones

• The state’s transitioning economy is lagging. Pennsylvania ranks near the bottom of states in employment growth. Pay lags behind both the nation and Mid-Atlantic states. And a large percentage of the state’s employees work in low-wage jobs

Pennsylvania’s population grew by just 2.5 percent between 1982 and 1997, but its urbanized footprint grew by 47 percent over that time. That meant that the third-slowest-growing state in the country developed the sixth-largest amount of land, as it consumed more farmland and natural space per added resident than every state but Wyoming. In short, the state is squandering a key source of competitive advantage: its beckoning landscape and superb natural assets.

Populations in older Pennsylvania are sagging and with them long-vibrant neighborhoods. Tax bases are stagnating. And jobs continue to relocate to the greenfields, leaving deserted factories and abandoned commercial blocks behind. Pennsylvania, quite simply, is squandering the enormous human and material investment it has made in its older communities over three centuries.

Five recommendations:
We recommend that Pennsylvania create a statewide vision for economic competitiveness and land-use, and get serious about planning and coordination.

We recommend that Pennsylvania fully assess the spatial impacts of its programs and make reinvestment in its older cities, boroughs, and older townships its explicit priority.

We recommend that Pennsylvania invest heavily in education and training, promote development in key select industries, and focus on industries that promote the revitalization of older communities.

We recommend that Pennsylvania make itself a world leader in devising policies and programs to encourage wholesale land reclamation and redevelopment in cities, towns, and older townships.

We recommend that Pennsylvania assess its state-local government system, foster more coordination through its own actions and incentives, and make it far easier for governments that want to work together to do so.

Slow immigration, heavy out-migration, and light inmigration also explain why Pennsylvania now ranks second among the states for its share of older Americans.

The faster-growing southeastern and south-central portions of the state had relatively low shares of seniors, while the northeastern, western, and central parts of the state are grayer.

The bulk of Pennsylvania’s growth in foreign-born population took place in the eastern and south-central regions in the 1990s.

Pennsylvania is suffering from a serious “brain drain”

The Commonwealth lingers in the lower half of states based on its percentage of residents with bachelor’s and associate’s degrees. And while the state does an excellent job of attracting college and graduate students to its many universities and colleges—the state ranked sixth among states based on its number of college students in 2000—it has a markedly more difficult time retaining them after graduation.31 A recent study by the Pennsylvania State Data Center reveals, for example, that between 1999 and 2001, Pennsylvania experienced a net loss of over 20,000 adults who had college or graduate degrees, over 13,000 of whom were aged 20 to 29.32 The analysis also concluded that the state lost over 21,000 residents who had some college training.

Over 80 percent of those graduating from the University of Pennsylvania between 1990 and 2000, and over 70 percent of Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) graduates, have since left the state. Most fled to such lifestyle and economic hot spots as New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. ... Pitt and Temple graduates tend to remain in-state

[continued in next post]

12-17-2003, 11:37 PM	#1
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	PA's future - Brooking Institute The Brookings Institute performs an comprehensive analysis of the PA economy, its problems, and how it could address those issues. Most requires actions starting with the Governor. The current PA Governor has demonstrated ability to start such programs. Over the years, will he address these problems? Below are selected paragraphs, sentences, and phrases from that report at http://www.brook.edu/pennsylvania: Nearly 80 percent of Pennsylvania’s residents were born and raised in the state. • Pennsylvania is barely growing and it’s aging. During the 1990s, Pennsylvania garnered the third-slowest growth among states, as it grew by just 3.4 percent—or 400,000 residents. That growth at least improved on the declines and stasis of the 1970s and 80s. But the recovery remained anemic. Making these trends starker are the tepid population dynamics they mask. In the latter half of the 1990s the sixth-largest state experienced the fifth-largest net out-migration of residents, and the ninth-largest percentage loss of young people aged 25- to 34-years old in 2000. Meanwhile, the state added relatively few births and captured only modest immigration. Consequently, the Commonwealth now ranks second among states for its share of Americans over age 65. Pennsylvania lacks the vibrant population dynamics usually associated with flourishing economies. Instead, the Commonwealth ranks near the bottom of states in employment growth. Pay lags behind both the nation and other Mid-Atlantic states. And while the state’s top-flight health care and education specialties flourish as the service sector grows, an unusually large percentage of the state’s workers (60 percent of them) toil in lower-pay jobs with wages of less than $27,000 per year. Darkening the prospects for a quick reinvention is Pennsylvania’s relatively low level of higher education. In 2000, only 22.4 percent of Pennsylvanians possessed a bachelor’s degree, compared to 24.4 percent nationwide. Although that number has been improving, the Commonwealth still ranks just 30th among the states on this key indicator—lower than all its neighbors but West Virginia and Ohio. Pennsylvania does not yet excel on this or other critical indices of competitiveness. • Pennsylvania is barely growing • The state is spreading out—and hollowing out • The state’s transitioning economy is lagging • Pennsylvania’s population is barely growing. Only North Dakota and West Virginia grew more slowly in the 1990s. • The state is spreading out—and hollowing out. Population and jobs aren’t growing so much as shifting from close-in places to farther-out ones • The state’s transitioning economy is lagging. Pennsylvania ranks near the bottom of states in employment growth. Pay lags behind both the nation and Mid-Atlantic states. And a large percentage of the state’s employees work in low-wage jobs Pennsylvania’s population grew by just 2.5 percent between 1982 and 1997, but its urbanized footprint grew by 47 percent over that time. That meant that the third-slowest-growing state in the country developed the sixth-largest amount of land, as it consumed more farmland and natural space per added resident than every state but Wyoming. In short, the state is squandering a key source of competitive advantage: its beckoning landscape and superb natural assets. Populations in older Pennsylvania are sagging and with them long-vibrant neighborhoods. Tax bases are stagnating. And jobs continue to relocate to the greenfields, leaving deserted factories and abandoned commercial blocks behind. Pennsylvania, quite simply, is squandering the enormous human and material investment it has made in its older communities over three centuries. Five recommendations: We recommend that Pennsylvania create a statewide vision for economic competitiveness and land-use, and get serious about planning and coordination. We recommend that Pennsylvania fully assess the spatial impacts of its programs and make reinvestment in its older cities, boroughs, and older townships its explicit priority. We recommend that Pennsylvania invest heavily in education and training, promote development in key select industries, and focus on industries that promote the revitalization of older communities. We recommend that Pennsylvania make itself a world leader in devising policies and programs to encourage wholesale land reclamation and redevelopment in cities, towns, and older townships. We recommend that Pennsylvania assess its state-local government system, foster more coordination through its own actions and incentives, and make it far easier for governments that want to work together to do so. Slow immigration, heavy out-migration, and light inmigration also explain why Pennsylvania now ranks second among the states for its share of older Americans. The faster-growing southeastern and south-central portions of the state had relatively low shares of seniors, while the northeastern, western, and central parts of the state are grayer. The bulk of Pennsylvania’s growth in foreign-born population took place in the eastern and south-central regions in the 1990s. Pennsylvania is suffering from a serious “brain drain” The Commonwealth lingers in the lower half of states based on its percentage of residents with bachelor’s and associate’s degrees. And while the state does an excellent job of attracting college and graduate students to its many universities and colleges—the state ranked sixth among states based on its number of college students in 2000—it has a markedly more difficult time retaining them after graduation.31 A recent study by the Pennsylvania State Data Center reveals, for example, that between 1999 and 2001, Pennsylvania experienced a net loss of over 20,000 adults who had college or graduate degrees, over 13,000 of whom were aged 20 to 29.32 The analysis also concluded that the state lost over 21,000 residents who had some college training. Over 80 percent of those graduating from the University of Pennsylvania between 1990 and 2000, and over 70 percent of Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) graduates, have since left the state. Most fled to such lifestyle and economic hot spots as New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. ... Pitt and Temple graduates tend to remain in-state [continued in next post]