Economy 4.0: A Bug in the Ointment

About 10 days ago, I posted a brief piece, “Questions about the Volkwagen USA Deal,” that questioned the wisdom of using $6 million in state subsidies to bring 400 high-paying Volkswagen USA headquarters jobs to Fairfax County. That question was the perfect segue into the second installment of my “Economy 4.0” series, which asks the core question, what exactly are we trying to achieve with economic development — job creation for the sake of job creation, or better places to live? As I expanded my arguments, what started as an introduction to an essay about the metrics of prosperity became a detailed case study. So I hived it off into a story of its own.

Here’s my argument in a nutshell: In a regional economy like Northern Virginia characterized by chronic labor shortages, the only way that VW can fill 400 new jobs is to bring 400 wage/salary earners into the region. While corporate VW will pay taxes and its employees will pay taxes, they also will require public services and infrastructure. Northern Virginia’s infrastructure, especially schools and roads, is already overloaded. Someone will have to pay a lot of money in up-front capital costs to accommodate the newcomers. Therefore, the creation of those 400 jobs is a mixed blessing.

Some might argue, well, those are very high-paying jobs. Surely those people will pay their own way. There’s no denying that the VW jobs are the kind of jobs that economic developers salivate over. At $125,000 per year on average, VW headquarters employees will earn twice the regional average and three times the state average. But we must consider two things. First, through the multiplier effect, those jobs generate another 100, 200 or maybe more retail- and service-sector jobs in the economy. That means even more people will move into the region — teachers, policemen, hair dressers, Seven 11 clerks, etc., who certainly will not be earning $125,000 a year.

Secondly, it is theoretically possible that governance structures and human settlement patterns in Northern Virginia are so dysfunctional that even jobs paying $125,000 on average do not pay for themselves! According to Virginia Employment Commission data, Fairfax County is projected to increase the number of jobs by roughly 250,000, or 21.9 percent, between 2004 and 2014, but population growth in the county has slowed to the 6.0 to 6.5 percent range. In other words, three out of every four new employees will work in Fairfax County but live somewhere else.

That’s the jobs/housing imbalance that Ed Risse is always warning us about. The result is more people crowding onto more increasingly overloaded roads and driving ever longer distances. How much will it cost to upgrade the transportation network to handle those additional employees, and how long will it take to recoup that cost in tax revenues? The fact is, we don’t know. No one is asking the question, so we clearly don’t have the answers. Absent hard data to the contrary, we have to consider the possibility that the Commonwealth of Virginia spent $6 million to subsidize Northern Virginia in an entirely self-destructive enterprise of digging itself into a deeper hole.
(Photo credit: Wikipedia.)

Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

17 responses to “Economy 4.0: A Bug in the Ointment”

  1. Anonymous Avatar

    Beating up on VW is wrong. First, 400 high paying jobs really isn’t all that much. Secondly, their children will just as likely go to good private schools which the DC area has great abundance. With housing in a slump, there must be plenty of high end homes for these people and they might choose to live in Potomac rather than McLean, solving one problem.
    If you really want to bark up the right tree for a change. Look at what the THOUSANDS of extra families will mean to NOVA when expansions at Ft. Belvoir and Quantico are complete.
    Can’t see how the VW example jives with this “4.0” or whatever broad economic point you are trying to make.

  2. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Anonymous 9:54 a.m., you may be right about VW. As I stated very clearly, it is possible that the VW deal will pay for itself. My point is that we don’t know for sure because we don’t even bother to ask the question, much less measure it.

    As for Fort Belvoir and Quantico, you are undoubtedly right. Those jobs undoubtedly will create mayhem. At least the state and local governments didn’t fall over themselves trying to get those jobs — that was basically a federal government decision.

  3. Jim Bacon Avatar

    P.S. I’m not “beating up” on Volkswagen. VW hasn’t done anything wrong, and I never suggested that it did. My point is that Virginia is subsidizing job creation without any idea of what the hidden costs are.

  4. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    It’s hard to conceive any area telling VW .. “we’re so worried about the infrastructure impacts of you coming here – that we’d like you to reconsider while we mull it over”.

    It could be .. just as JB opines but it flies (detonates?) in the face of conventional wisdom.

    What if VW said… Richmond… or Tidewater?

    The point of my question is twofold:

    1. – is it about NoVa rather than any Va locality?

    2. – is it about the idea of the subsidy no matter where VW might end up?

    Sometimes – I think these issues are like a bunch of spagetti… i.e. multiple issues entwined or appearing to be entwined.

    And as far as BRAC is concerned. Oh come on… do you think if NoVa erupted in fierce opposition to those proposals – that the BRAC Commission would have ignored it?

    NoVa is not unique when it comes to jobs, congestion, etc.

    I would posit that anywhere than VW or the military might go – would have impacts – but when is the last time we heard any urban area – disinvite new jobs?

    you know.. this is like the population growth issue in my mind.

    I don’t see any area … urban or otherwise.. come right out and say: “go away”… we don’t want nor need more jobs or people”.

  5. Anonymous Avatar

    Yes, but imagine those VW jobs went to Roanoke. The people there would get 10.9% more for their money, and the ripple effect would be much stronger, because each ripple also buys 10.9% more.

    As for BRAC the current situation is already pandemonium. A lot of those people won’t be new people, they will be the same people commuting to a different place: Belvoir instead of Crystal City.

    Who knows if the net difference is more travel or less? One story said it would increase regional auto traffic slightly, like 0.1%. Even so, if Belvoir and Quantico are not geared up properly for the transition we will have another example of the connection between jobs and congestion, as opposed to blaming the entire settlement pattern.

    It is a perfect situation for an in-depth study. I hope that someone who does not have an axe to grind is working on it.

    RH

  6. Anonymous Avatar

    What’s good about VW? It isn’t Volvo, that’s what. Some years ago, the state and localities laid out a bundle in goodies to land a Volvo truck plant in the Pulaski area. Then Volvo had the brass to tell its labor unions that unless they shut up, they’d split.
    Guess that kind of 19th century hard ball is Economics 0.0025

  7. Anonymous Avatar

    The fact that AOL is moving its corporate headquarters from NOVA to New York kinda makes Volkswagen a really bad example for these “pattern of human settlement” bromides.
    I think it’s time Bacons Rebellion grew up, accepted reality and stopped the pop sociology.

  8. Anonymous Avatar

    AOL is leaving 4000 employees here. They are taking only a handful of corporate executives to New York. Same as VW.

    New York is the center of the advertizing world, and Washington is the center of auto regulation.

  9. Anonymous Avatar

    How much will it cost to upgrade the transportation network to handle those additional employees?

    According to today’s Post a projected 218 lane miles or 74 million more transit riderswould have to be added each year just to maintain current congestion levels.

    Does anyone think either of those figures are achievable? Remember, those transit riders are not always using transit, they may also contribute a considerable amount to voluntary VMT.

    RH

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    gee.. if AOL folks are leaving and VW folks replacing them.. it’s a “wash” is it not?

    How come when AOL leaves – they don’t talk about the “congestion relief Bonus”?

    Here’s an idea – how about..instead of spending millions/billions on new lane miles – we use that money to bribe companies to LEAVE No Va?

    Wouldn’t that be More cost effective?

  11. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Larry, just let the market sort it out. The government should not be in the business of subsidizing individual businesses to come — or encouraging them to leave. The government should focus on what it, and only it, can do: developing human capital, providing public services and providing infrastructure in the most cost-efficient manner it is capable of.

  12. Anonymous Avatar

    The bulk of AOL employees are not leaving. Only a handful of marketing executives are moving to New York.

    Otherwise, I think you have got the message. It probably would be worthwhile to “bribe” some comapnies to leave. Preferabley to someplace local, like Winchester, Warrenton, or Fredericksburg.

    Now, here’s an idea. Rather than force me to continue to farm, through the threat of even higher taxes for not farming, and absent any other alternative, how about if you just “bribe” me to do what it is you want, keep your open spaces for you?

    It is no different from what you propose for Dominion.

    RH

  13. Anonymous Avatar

    Why is it that the government should not be in the business of subsidizing individual businesses to come — or encouraging them to leave? You don’t seem to have any compunctions about government setting all kinds of incentives or disincentives in order to place people in the “correct” places.

    I agree with you, government should stick to its business, and leave us alone. All of us.

    RH

  14. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Ray, you said, “You don’t seem to have any compunctions about government setting all kinds of incentives or disincentives in order to place people in the ‘correct’ places.”

    I will repeat myself for about the ten thousandth time: I do NOT, NOT, NOT believe in creating incentives or disincentives to get people to live in the “correct” places.

    I want to ELIMINATE existing incentives, regulations and controls that get people to live where they live, very often in the wrong places. I believe in creating the closest thing we can, in this imperfect world, to a free market in where people live. I believe in letting developers create the kinds of communities that people want to live in — even if they are not communities I would choose to live in.

    How many times do I have to say that?

    Ray, it makes it very difficult to carry on a dialogue with you when you persist in misunderstanding one of the core arguments I make.

  15. Anonymous Avatar

    I apologize. I do understand your position, I think.

    But you do favor policies that would charge full locational costs, right? You are in favor of more functional settlement patterns, right?

    When you say you “want to ELIMINATE existing incentives, regulations and controls that get people to live where they live, very often in the wrong places”, it’s that last phrase that gets me.

    It makes it sound as if you would eliminate existing rules, but with partiality. Now that you add the idea that you would do so, even if they are not the commuities you would choose to live in, then it is a lot more generous.

    Assuming we want certain things to happen that the market won’t provide, we are going to have to incentivise them. I prefer to see positive incentives over negative ones, so that those that wish to see certain changes are the users who pay for what they get. It gets very confusing when an incentive to one comes out of excess taxes charged to another.

    RH

  16. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Ray, I favor a system where people are fee to choose the kinds of communities they want to live in, and where developers are free to build the kinds of communities they think will appeal to people. If people choose differently than me, that’s OK. I don’t want to tell anyone how to live — I just don’t want to subsidize their lifestyle choices.

    Here’s what may be the source of confusion: I think that the current regulatory regime creates a shortage of certain types of living patterns (such as we see in Arlington, Alexandria, downtown Richmond, Norfolk, Roanoke, etc., and assorted New Urbanist communities). If we moved to a true free market on a level playing field, I believe that developers would respond to the latent demand by creating more of those types of communities.

    But maybe I’m wrong. I’m willing to live with that possibility. As long as the system is responding to what consumers want, rather than what municipalities permit, the system will optimize the collective good.

  17. Anonymous Avatar

    “But maybe I’m wrong. I’m willing to live with that possibility. As long as the system is responding to what consumers want, rather than what municipalities permit, the system will optimize the collective good.”

    Here is where we agree. I think that is a considerbly different statement than the one I objected to, and much more clear. I might be wrong about my assumptions/obsrvations, too, but I’m willing to live with it.

    ——————————-

    Now, suppose we find some magic algorithm that shows us the path to building a community that has the lowest governmental and personal costs. Suppose this algorithm is so good that we can show that it would cut $1000 off the average tax bill, if everyone adopts this common vision.

    In that case, would you be willing to subsidize those that adopt this specific lifestyle to the extent of say $250?

    Or would you still say you don’t want to tell people how to live, no matter what it costs?

    You can fall back on the idea that if they pay their full locational costs, then it won’t matter because there won’t be any cost externalities.

    But, what if they choose a living pattern that involves higher cost and more travel, and they are willing to pay the extra cost? Doesn’t that still mean an inflated government and more pollution, which affects everyone? Just because they are paying extra for poisoning me doesn’t mean I have to like it.

    I agree with what you say about a shortage of certain types of living arrangements. House and apartment sharing, basement apartments, and sublets are all indications of this.

    Now what happens if the free market gets you more of these new living arrangements. Then you find out the governmental and social costs are higher, not lower. Then what?

    Well, you charge them their full locational costs, of course, raise the price and lower the availability. If that happens then wasn’t the current government justified in creating a shortage to begin with, or was it?

    —————————–

    It is a six pointed spirogragh hex.
    At the points are what we want, what other people want, what we think other people want, what we are willing topay for, what they are willing to pay for, and what government must provide.

    We loop endlessly from random point to random point in a pattern that is always similar but always changing.

    I think I’ll graph it and go paint it on the barn. Oops, I forgot, advertisements are not allowed on barns.

    RH

Leave a Reply