A Overlooked Factor in College Search: Metro Growth and Job Growth

College Search & Selection
61

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, no. Actually not. Most of Manhattan is well above the 1 meter to 1.5 meters above sea level that EPA and reputable scientists use to calculate which areas are most vulnerable to sea level rise and tropical storm damage as a result of global warming. Not to say some parts of Manhattan aren’t at risk. But with real estate valued at—what, half a billion per acre in lower Manhattan?–Manhattan is worth protecting with seawalls and the like. It won’t be evacuated anytime soon. Besides, it’s not on the path for a direct hit by a hurricane or major tropical storm, like the Outer Banks are. They’re history, baby. Enjoy them while you can, because probably within your lifetime they’ll be gone!</p>

62

<p>Sorry bclintonk, you are completely, 100%, flat-out wrong. Almost every expert out there disagrees with you, and for good reason. Keep living in your fantasy world (Michigan? Great place). As has been said, the key for job growth lies in the future, not the present or the past. North Carolina is and has been moving past its manufacturing days, and businesses have realized it. </p>

<p>I’m torn about who trust. Forbes (impartial people who research these things every year for a living) and over 400 of the nation’s top business leaders, or bclintonk, someone with no expertise but a fair amount of hatred for the Tar Heel state. Its really a tough call. </p>

<p>Why did 463 of the nation’s top CEO’s vote North Carolina as the 2nd best state in the nation for future job growth? Seems like they are living in reality, and they are the ones that make decisions and create jobs. But by all means, feel free to live in under your rock. Just don’t be surprised when you emerge in 10 years and see that North Carolina has passed you by.</p>

63

<p>

</p>

<p>Dream on. That’ll happen after California has its next big one, Yellowstone erupts and a category 3 takes out Manhattan. North Carolina has dealt with plenty of hurricanes before, and has emerged stronger each time. Your bitterness has really made you delusional when it comes to these things. Why so full of hate? Did you apply for a job at RTP and get turned down?</p>

64

<p>cuse,
I think he’s venting at North Carolina because he is frustrated that this discussion puts a spotlight on Michigan’s many troubles. Unfortunately for him, the economic facts are what the economic facts are. </p>

<p>IMO, prospective college students should consider the economic conditions of the states/regions in which they are planning to go to school. I think that this is particularly true for students attending less selective universities or those graduating without distinction from the more prestigious schools and/or are likely to seek work in the state/region where the college is located. In such circumstances, the local economy can have an outsized effect on job opportunities. That was the point of the thread until it devolved into a North Carolina vs Michigan “debate.” </p>

<p>In order to help readers better understand the relative fortunes of North Carolina and Michigan, let’s consider a few facts:</p>

<p>Population Comparison
1990, 2000, 2008
6.6 million, 8.0 million, 9.3 million North Carolina
9.3 million, 9.9 million, 10.0 million Michigan</p>

<p>Conclusion: North Carolina population growth from 1990-2008 is 41% and over 16% since 2000 alone. By contrast, Michigan grew 7.5% from 1990-2008 and is flat since 2000. The USA’s population has grown by over 8% since 2000.</p>

<p>Biggest Metro Areas with 1 million or more people (2008 pop)
2.2 million Charlotte, NC
1.6 million Raleigh-Durham, NC
1.5 million Greensboro-W/S, NC</p>

<p>5 million Detroit, MI
1.3 million Grand Rapids, MI</p>

<p>Conclusion: While neither has great breadth, clearly Michigan is much more concentrated in its southeastern corner with approximately 50% of its population. Given the fortunes of the automotive industry, this has negative repercussions for the most important economy in the state. Charlotte, with its large financial centers, represents about 25% of NC’s population. </p>

<p>2005-2008 GDP Progression (excel file Table 4 in [BEA</a> News Release (GDP by State)](<a href=“http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/gsp_newsrelease.htm]BEA”>GDP by State | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)))</p>

<p>2005
$348.3 billion North Carolina
$372.0 billion Michigan</p>

<p>2008
$400.2 billion (+14.6%) North Carolina
$382.5 billion (+2.8%) Michigan</p>

<p>Conclusion: While NC’s population has been growing quickly, its GDP has also spurted and its recent economic momentum and diversified economy position it well for the future.</p>

<p>If you want to evaluate North Carolina, you need to understand the history. Textile and furniture were major manufacturing businesses for the state and nearly all of that was located in rural towns. Over the last thirty years, bclinton is correct in pointing out that many of those jobs have been lost or moved to lower wage countries (very similar to what has happened in many of America’s manufacturing businesses). </p>

<p>The key to understanding North Carolina is that it has replenished its economy with rapid population and economic growth in its major cities of Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Greensboro. As the article below makes clear, this stands in stark contrast to what has gone on in Michigan where manufacturing job losses are deep and have been going on for years and other parts of the local economy have not taken up the slack.</p>

<p>[Michigan</a> Works to Remake Itself Without King Auto - Companies * US * News * Story - CNBC.com](<a href=“http://www.cnbc.com/id/31205063]Michigan”>Michigan Works to Remake Itself Without King Auto)</p>

<p>While both Michigan and North Carolina have challenges ahead, IMO Michigan’s mountain to climb appears higher. A 2007 Civil Society Institute survey indicated that only a third of Michigan households said that their economic prospects were “not at all” dependent on the health of the auto industry. With the government’s takeover of GM, the sale of Chrysler and the ongoing workout issues facing Ford, the state’s most important industry is under a very dark cloud with obvious and very negative consequences for those in the state. </p>

<p>North Carolina’s prospects appear stronger to me although it will need to demonstrate that the recent troubles at Bank of America and the takeover of Wachovia won’t lead to large job losses for Charlotte. NC also needs to continue its momentum in the Research Triangle as well as other efforts to attract money and jobs to the state as happened recently with Apple’s announcement that it will invest $1 billion in a new server farm in the state.</p>

65

<p>Server farms employ very few people for the investment. </p>

<p>The idea that the local economy is all that important in choosing a college is just BS. Many people prefer to move back to the area they came from to be closer to family and friends. Others want to strike out to the coastal cities or new growing cities like Austin, Boise, Salt Lake, and even Madison or Ann Arbor. With the national firms recruiting at major schools it’s really very easy to find a job 3000 miles from your school. Now if you grow up in Detroit and want to work there it might be tougher than if you grow up in Raleigh and want to work there. But that’s really a small subset of people.</p>

66

<p>Excactly correct barrons. This is just another thread by you know who to trash certain parts of the country.</p>

67

<p>Interesting survey by the Brookings Institute showing that the effects of the recession are very unevenly distributed. For example, while Raleigh-Cary is one of the second 20 strongest metropolitan areas, High Point is one of the second 20 weakest metropolitan areas. Here’s the link <a href=“http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/Programs/Metro/metro_monitor/metro_ranks/overall_performance_ranking_table.pdf[/url]”>http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/Programs/Metro/metro_monitor/metro_ranks/overall_performance_ranking_table.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I think that a senior in high school trying to make a decision about where to go to college would be hard pressed to figure out what is going to happen to the economy of a given region by the time that student graduates.</p>

68

<p>IHS Global Insight, using numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, did some projections about future economic and job growth across the USA. The Sacramento Bee did a story on this. </p>

<p>[Interactive:</a> When will the nation’s job markets return to normal? - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee](<a href=“http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/1936416.html]Interactive:”>http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/1936416.html)</p>

<p>As the accompanying chart shows, most of the South (not South Florida and not the Gulf Coast) and large parts of the Midwest will recover first. According to the IHS projection, almost all of Michigan (at least the part where people live) is going to be under pressure for as far as the eye can see (red means 2014 or later). I think some retailers have gotten the word.</p>

<p><a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124510185111216455.html[/url]”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124510185111216455.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>In fairness, it should be noted that North Carolina is also not going to be without troublespots.</p>

69

<p>^It’s a viscious cycle, and surely Michigan must implement measures to put a stop gap to the bleeding.</p>

<p>However, I think you underestimate the need for college graduates when the economy starts to turn around. Populations in the US are mobile. Michigan university grads will be able to find jobs.</p>

70

<p>

</p>

<p>LOL. I’m not “frustrated” about anything. Nor am I “venting.” I am merely pointing out, using facts and data readily at my disposal, that the economy of North Carolina is not the economic nirvana that certain people on this thread would pretend it to be. That state’s got enormous economic problems right now, some of the very worst in the country, in fact. The data prove it. If you don’t think that’s right, show me the hard data that say otherwise.</p>

<p>Nor am I trying to claim that North Carolina’s economic problems are worse than Michigan’s. Everyone knows southeastern Michigan is taking a deep hit. So are many parts of the country, but by most measures, southeastern Michigan’s problems are worse. This comes as no surprise to me, nor am I defensive about it, as I’ve got no real current ties to the state (well, a few relatives, but for various reasons they’re pretty well set).</p>

<p>What that’s got to do with where one chooses to go to college, however, is questionable. New England went through a deep and long-lasting economic decline after its old manufacturing base in things like textiles and shoes fled to the Carolinas for cheaper wages (and long before those same industries started fleeing the Carolinas for even cheaper labor in El Salvador, Malaysia, and Vietnam). That didn’t make it a foolish bet to go to Harvard, MIT, Yale, or Brown for college. A quality education is a quality education, and the labor market for “knowledge workers” to a large degree always has been national, NOT local, in scope. These days that market is not only thoroughly national, but increasingly international. I say go to the best school you can get into and can afford to attend. On that measure, the University of Michigan will stack up very well against the competition for a lot of people; and its grads will continue to find jobs in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as in growth markets overseas, as they have for many decades despite the state’s chronic economic problems. </p>

<p>Heck, the Michigan economy stunk to high heavens when I graduated from the University of Michigan way back in the 1970s, with the unemployment rate up around 10%—not far from current levels… (This is something very few people outside the state seem to appreciate—Michigan’s auto-related economic woes are longstanding and chronic, dating back more than three decades, and the current situation there is not appreciably worse than it’s been at least half a dozen times since the 1950s. In fact, today’s 12.7% unemployment rate in Michigan is well below the peak of 16.9% in 1982). Did the bad local economy keep me or my classmates from getting the jobs we wanted? Of course not. My plans included grad school, and I attended a couple of pretty good ones with highly recognizable Ivy League labels attached, then found work in my chosen field in the Northeast, where I spent the better part of the next 20 years. Of the dozen or so people I was closest to in college, maybe 3 or 4 stayed in Michigan, either to take over well-established family businesses (which continue to thrive) or because they became medical doctors and could earn a comfortable living wherever they chose to locate. The rest ended up in DC, New York, Boston, California, Colorado, Seattle . . . you name it. Most relocated willingly, and indeed most have moved several times since graduating college, either for specific professional opportunities or because they had personal preferences for particular parts of the country. </p>

<p>The idea that these people were somehow impaired in their career prospects by having attended college at the University of Michigan at a time when that state was foundering economically is simply ludicrous—laughable on its face. The very premise of this thread reveals a profound misunderstanding about how job markets for high-skilled managerial/professional labor work, and the role that higher education plays in it.</p>

71

<p>Exactly. When I graduated from UW with my MS in 1984 the Midwest was just coming out of the great Rust Belt days (which I spent working in Austin TX with no problem with my other UW degree) and I landed a great job in Chicago. Of course Austin boomed from 80-83 before the 10 year Texas Bust. And a mighty bust that was. Remember the S&L crisis of the late 80’s? Texas went on sale at 25 cents on the dollar.</p>

<p>When the recession finally caught on in Chicago around 1990 I migrated west to Seattle. It took a few phone calls to a friend of an alum to land a good job in Seattle. Did my interview as he passed through O’hare. In the current economy you could be anywhere 10 years from now. Nobody knows.</p>

72

<p>^^^All except hawkette barrons. She knows everything, except what university she graduated from.</p>

73

<p>Bc & barrons,
Two questions-

  1. Do you think that the Texas economy was a positive or a negative for students graduating from any of the major Texas colleges (UT, A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, SMU, TCU, U Houston, etc) during the oil bust of the late 80s?<br>
  2. Do you think that the California economy was a positive or negative for students attending California colleges (any of the UCs, Stanford, Caltech, even the Cal State system) when the high tech boom took off and then continued throughout the 80s?</p>

<p>If you think that students (of all stripes and coming from all universities) were unaffected by either of these economic periods, then we have nothing more to discuss. We just disagree and I’m happy to let it go at that.</p>

74

<p>^ hawkette,
I think it depends entirely on one’s field, and one’s expectations and preferences with respect to where one lives. You can’t answer those questions in general and in the abstract. </p>

<p>If you ask, “Is it a positive or negative for Dartmouth students that there are precious few professional-level jobs in northern New Hampshire—not now, not ever,” they’d look at you like you had a screw loose. They didn’t go to northern New Hampshire for the jobs or with the expectation of staying there, they went for the education, with the expectation they’ll end up elsewhere for work and/or grad school. The depth, reslience, and growth rate of the local economy is pretty much a non-factor for them. If you ask Cornell students, “Is it a positive or negative for you that the economy of upstate New York is chronically depressed and is likely to get worse before it gets better, if it ever gets better,” you’d get pretty much the same response. They go to Ithaca for the education—certainly not for the weather, and in the vast majoirty of cases not because they expect to end up employed and living in Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, or Buffalo. That’s just an absurd question.</p>

<p>Now it may be different for students in Texas. Especially coming off a long run of boom years, many students at Texas colleges and universities probably hoped and expected to stay in Texas, and when the Texas economy went bust no doubt it forced some to change their plans. To that extent, it hurt. Certainly those expecting to become petroleum engineers and seismologists and the like had a wrenching adjustment. But that sort of cyclical downturn is hard to plan for, and it can happen in almost any sector—just think how stunned all those young investment bankers are who just a few months ago were crowing on CC and elsewhere about how much money they were going to make on Wall Street, or in Charlotte, for gosh sakes. The dot.com bust of the early 2000s had the same kind of jarring, dislocating effect on a lot of computer whizzes in silicon Valley who just a few years earlier had been benefiting from a similar high-flying boom.</p>

<p>But I actually don’t think many students at the University of Michigan plan to stay in Michigan. The most recent surveys I’ve seen say only about 1/3 of Michigan students plan to stay in the state after they graduate. A slightly higher percentage, closer to half, actually do stay—probably because more of them get attractive in-state job offers than expect to. I think very few OOS students come to Michigan expecting to end up staying after college (or grad school). Like students at Dartmouth and Cornell, they’re there for the education, expecting either to go “home” (wherever that may be) or to move forward to wherever the best job opportunities are—and that’s actually really hard to predict four years in advance, even if some local economies are flying high right now. Just ask the petroleum engineers in Texas in the 80s, or the dot.com bust victims in silicon Valley in the early 2000s, or the young I-bankers in 2009—they just didn’t see it coming, or they’d have chosen another line of work.</p>

<p>As for Michigan residents attending the University of Michigan, it’s a bit more complicated. Some do want to stay, but the message they’ve gotten from an early age is that the growth opportunities are elsewhere (and let’s face it, that’s been the message in Michigan at least since the early 1970s). So they can leave without skills and compete for low-end jobs in low-wage markets like the Carolinas. Or they can leave with a highly respected college degree and high-end job skills and compete for the much higher-paying jobs at the top of the food chain, wherever those may be. Some will actually find those jobs in Michigan; high-tech and knowledge-based jobs are still growing at a rapid clip in Ann Arbor, Lansing, and parts of Western Michigan. Others will lend up leaving the state, as they expect to. Either way, though, history suggests Michigan grads will continue to do very well and be highly sought-after in every corner of the country and many far-flung corners of the world.</p>

75

<p>Only if you wanted badly to stay in the state. Our economy is national/international and if you go to a school with some national links moving is not a problem. I have two Texas A&M grads living on my block in Seattle. They are engineers at major local firms. When I drive through my large planned community on football days I see flags from major schools all over the US.</p>

76

<p>This point has been made by others, and it bears repeating: the best students are somewhat mobile, and their aspirations (and the recruiters who seek them) can get them jobs anywhere, despite where they may elect to spend their college years. That’s why brilliant kids go to Grinnell, or Notre Dame, or Oberlin, or Dartmouth, or other schools that are located in places that have rarely or never been considered a major job growth region.</p>

<p>For other students, it may bear paying more attention to–if they believe for practical or economic reasons that they will be constraining their job search to regions near their college choice. Some colleges have a pretty regional recruiting constituency, and it adds a level of challenge for a student tackling a job search outside of the framework offered by his or her school.</p>

<p>I would also point out that some students choose their college based on its proximity to family/friends/home. It doesn’t matter how good the job market might be in Dallas (for example) if Knoxville is home and a student wants or needs to be close during college (and beyond). Geographic proximity is one of the reasons that less-selective institutions enjoy their share of honors students.</p>

77

<p>Don’t go to school in a small rural town, you will have to be a farmer.</p>

<p>Cornell, Colgate, Grinnell, etc, etc, fugedeboutit.</p>

<p>Some high pop metro areas have too few colleges. They net import college grads. Some have too many (like Boston) and they export college grads. Recruiters, employers, etc, all know this, and being rational, behave accordingly.</p>

<p>Do you really think Texas or NC employers are going to hold themselves captive to their local universities when they KNOW they are competing with so many other employers, and that there are college grads for the asking up north?</p>

<p>Would people as savvy as they must be really do that?</p>

78

<p>i think there is a profound misunderstanding here.</p>

<p>The analogy to Texas having a boom or bust is NOT Michigan or North Carolina having a boom or bust. Its more like France having a boom or bust. Or Japan.</p>

<p>Well that wasn’t really fair. Texas is not it’s own world QUITE as much as Japan is. ;)</p>