The lead NYT op-ed today is about how Rochester has prospered despite the decline of Eastman Kodak, formerly the city’s marquee employer. I’m delighted Rochester is prospering and wish its inhabitants all future success. But in laying out the reasons, the author, a professor at the University of Rochester, keeps coming back to the same source:
Over the last five years it [the university] has received more than $1.9 billion in research money, most of it from the federal government, which has in turn fueled local growth beyond the campus gates. …
The state and federal governments have been a big help, too. In 2006, the region around Rochester received a four-year federal Department of Labor grant to finance economic development initiatives — which in turn paved the way for almost $70 million in projects awarded in 2011 from Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s Regional Economic Development Council initiative. …
Moreover, universities provide stability in a rough economy by drawing in state and federal dollars, which can compensate for the decline of a major employer…
He does acknowledge at the end, though, that:
Of course, private companies need to be part of the game as well.
I was hoping that would come up eventually.
I wonder if the city of fathers of Rochester have a contingency plan, just in case the Chinese decide that sending their money to Rochester by way of Washington, DC is no longer a good investment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know what Rochester this professor is living in. It's true that downsizing at Kodak doesn't induce the same Mayan Calendar fear of doom, but that's only because Kodak has already shrunk so far it doesn't have as much left to lose. Rochester is not doing well, and most of us assume that our kids will be re-locating. I have one in Virginia already, one likely to go to Florida, and the other two likely to leave eventually.
It's too bad, this is a nice place to live, but we have a declining, rust-belt economy with New York State taxes. Honest appraisals aren't the cause of our problems, and happy talk isn't the cure.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis WSJ article from 01/14/2012 gives a much better picture of how low Rochester has sunk. Its major industries are all dying. There is little new to replace them except medical centers that cater to pension-rich former employees of Kodak, Xerox, Sprint and Bausch and Lomb. I lived in Rochester while in graduate school and have visted periodically since. It is an economically depressing and depressed city. The NY Times article author is off his rocker if he thinks that their is a rennasiance in that dump.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd if you counted the amount of federal dollars spent on Detroit, you could easily arrive at the conclusion that the more federal dollars a city receives the worse-off it will be in the long run.
And no, Rochester isn't going through a renassaince. That is, unless you believe that antique shops, cafes, and theatres are what drives a city. I bet that most of the newer businesses there are getting some kind of subsidies from Uncle Sam.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo the citizens of Rochester should be happy to be showered with the dollars taxed from the citizens of, say, Buffalo.
And the citizens of Buffalo should be happy to be showered with the dollars taxed from the citizens of, say, Rochester.
Forget for a moment the check-kiting dishonesty of the scam -- have some compassion for the leaders of non-bailed out cities. Exactly what will will be their incentive to live within their means? As investor, I don't start my business in Duluth in order to fund a convention center in Detroit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was born in Rochester and have lived in the vicinity for half a century. The University of Rochester is the second biggest employer in the area (behind only the Wegman's supermarket chain, I believe).
There's a new law in New York that requires employers to inform all their employees, in writing, of their pay rate every year and to store the signed acknowledgement for six years. This law is not, by itself, a huge burden on employers but it is still completely pointless and stupid. It is also normal for New York to create such paperwork without regard to logic, reason, or the cumulative effect of so much stupidity.
So when any city, like Rochester, wants to improve, there is only a shrinking tax base to pay for things, so they go to the state and federal governments for money. When one of these entities coughs up a few dollars, they call it a win for everybody, and pretend that NOW, finally, things will turn around.
The government taketh away (through idiotic regs), and the government giveth back (sometimes).
No, Rochester is not doing well at all. A lot of people just don't want to see it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe professor's idiotic op-ed reminds me of comedian Steve Martin's famous financial advice on "how to make a million dollars":
1. First, get a million dollars.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis reminds me of an old Journey to the Center of the Earth spoof -- probably Mad Magazine or something, pre-internet. At some point our heroes come upon the old explorer (Amundsen?) deep in the bowels of the earth with his pet duck. At one point, he's asked how he managed to survive and he explains that the he and the duck survived by eating her eggs. One person makes an off-hand comment to themselves that something's not right about that food chain.
In the leftest mind set, all wealth and progress flow from the government. Of course, the government gets its wealth through taxation and borrowing. They never seem to worry a whole lot about what happens when there's no one left to tax.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse