[I wrote this post on December 13th, 2005. I probably should have been spending more time raising money Philadelphians Against Santorum, but instead I wrote this. I am re-posting it today, because a year and a half later, I still fundamentally believe that our city can not survive the next century unless we fix our wage problem. Creating more jobs is good, but if we don't guarantee that those jobs come with higher median wages and are in industries with lasting power, nothing will change.]
The past few weeks of debate about a proposal to eliminate the business privellege tax have rekindled a long standing concern of most Philadelphians: will our city be able to survive the 21st century as a decent, livable and fun place which continues to offer opportunity to all? The city's political leaders and opinion makers say that we have to create more jobs and attract more people to live here. However, these “solutions” alone aren't enough.
To address these and other concerns, I began a multi-part series earlier this year investigating the factors that have created the Philadelphia economy of today (read part one here and part two here). After a many month lull, I present the third part of this series: why the quality of the wages earned by the average Philadelphian is the single most important issue facing Philadelphia’s economy today and in the future.
Click “read more” below to learn how wage decline is at the root of almost all of the other issues, like population loss, lowered municipal revenues, a weakened public education system and more that are often cited as the “cause” of problems in Philadelphia.
Despite a booming real estate market, I think most of us in Philadelphia are still very anxious about the future of our city. The city’s ability to remain fiscally solvent over the long-term is still very much in doubt. I wanted to find out analytically what exactly has been going on.
According to an analysis of US Census data completed by Mark Price, of the Keystone Research Center:
Between 1969 and 1999 the share of low and moderate income households increased in the city of Philadelphia by 28 percent. Over the same period the share of middle-income households declined by 23%.
Now obviously, one of the reasons that the number of middle-income households declined is that almost one million Philadelphians left the city during that same time. However, even with that level of population loss, we might be in very different shape today if the number of low-income families had not increased so dramatically.
Why did the number of low-income earners increase? Well in large part, low wages in Philadelphia over the past forty years have to do with the decline of manufacturing.
According to a Temple Press book,Philadelphia Neighborhoods, Division, and Conflict in a Post-Industrial City, many Philadelphia manufacturers headed for the suburbs in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Contrary to the anti-tax set's rhetoric, these companies generally left town in search of large tracts of land to build their new, more technologically advanced factories. Philadelphia’s industrial areas were too densely populated and most of the factories there had been built at the turn of the century. In short, they didn't leave because of tax policy but because of other location factors.
How did this impact average Philadelphian?
Well, if you wanted to keep a good, living wage manufacturing job, you had to be willing to move or commute to the burbs. And what with all the marketing and incentives targeted toward that post-war generation (not to mention the block-busting and plain old racism), many Philadelphians left.
This exodus, in pursuit of wages, left Philadelphia with a much smaller population and only the carcass of a working and middle class populace. The population loss alone was not a problem—the real problem was that those that left took the good jobs with them.
And ever since, the wage gap has continued to grow.
Again, according to Mark Price, an economist at the Keystone Research Center:
In 1969 households in the 90th percentile of family incomes earned eleven times the income of households in the 10th percentile of family earnings. By 1999, households in the 90th percentile earned 22 times the earnings of families in the 10th percentile.
To be clear, Mark is saying that the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest has DOUBLED in the past 30 years in Philadelphia.
So far, this may all seem like intuitive information. If you walk around the city and look at neighborhoods that still live in extreme poverty, it seems obvious that wage loss and lack of jobs is a major issue for the city.
Yet at the public policy level, very few civic leaders or elected officials consistently talk about ways which the city can use its power and economic leverage to reverse the trend of declining wages. There is a lot of talk about job creation in the abstract, but creating jobs is a pretty worthless if the quality of wages that goes with them is not enough to overcome this downward spiral we have been in for the past 30 years.
And while our elected leaders continue to be paralyzed when it comes to reversing wage decline, things only get worse.
The wages earned by the majority of Philadelphians continue to be lower than those earned by their counterparts in the 1960’s and 1950’s. Declining wages point to the real crisis in Philadelphia that neither new condo construction nor tax breaks alone can fix: the need for good jobs and a solid infrastructure for business and industry.
For instance the median wage income in the City of Philadelphia is lower today than it was in 1969. The inflation adjusted median for manufacturing workers was $26,556 whereas in 1999 it was only $24,900.
To make matters worse, one in four Philadelphians lives below the official US poverty line which is $19,307 for a family of 4. The poverty line is somewhat obsolete in that it underreports poverty. A better measure, according to some experts, is to double the current poverty line: so any family of four earning less than $39,000 a year would be considered one that is living in poverty. By that measure, 42% of all Philadelphians are living in poverty.
Aside from the moral obligation we all face to eliminate poverty and economic injustice, there is another incentive to eliminate poverty. If the two out of four Philadelphians who are living in poverty were able to earn more in wages, they would be able to contribute more money to city coffers via the wage tax. The business community would benefit from higher wages for poor workers because their wages would be used to purchase goods and services at the local level. Schools would have more money to spend on education and, in general, the city could do a lot more with its revenues.
How do you acheive this from a public policy level? What are the solutions?
Well, that’s why this is a multi-part series, so stay tuned! In a nutshell though, to again quote Mark Price:
Broadening economic opportunity in Philadelphia will require concerted effort to erect new pathways to the middle-class.” In other words, we do as a city have to sit down and think about how we can rebuild our middle class. It won’t just happen by lowering taxes or offering incentives to business. Building a solid economic infrastructure requires figuring out the niches industries that Philadelphia is well suited for, it requires and investment in education and training and it requires a broad vision for the future.
Some recent gains, most notably soaring real estate values and the continued success of Center City as a business, shopping and destination center, are great. However, no comprehensive vision for the city’s economic future has been achieved.
Tax abatements, tax cuts, more money for condos, and more have become acceptable, even preferred, uses of economic development funds, because they have “proven” themselves as economic stimulators. But aren’t Mark’s finding on wage decline enough to prove that there are larger, unrestrained forces at work in the Philadelphia economy?
What if the city’s gains aren’t enough to stop our eventual demise? What if using the same strategy over and over again doesn’t continue to help the city grow? What if rising real estate values and more are only small measures of moderate success that have mostly been caused by external factors (nationwide real estate value bump-ups and a return to urban centers)?
Are we really doing what we need to do to put Philadelphia back in charge of its own economic destiny?
The first step we can take toward creating public policy that does prioritize determining the city’s economic destiny starts with an understanding of the importance of boosting wages.
I am also turning off comments on this post, mostly because it's going to be too confusing to have new comments added to the old ones...no one will be able to respond and keep track of today vs. 1.5 year ago responses effectively. Instead, use this thread to respond.
Goode/Nutter/Dougherty/Fattah
This post is almost like a policy briefing for anyone thinking about running for Mayor in 2007....
Lessons of Katrina
A city with upscale businesses, expensive housing, a huge tourist industry, a great night-life. A can't miss proposition, right? I think New Oreleans proved just how wrong that was as an economic development strategy. It simply is not true that a rising tide lifts all boats. Yes, we need more tax dollars in the City for the City to do more things, provide more services, etc. But, if we dont figure out a way for the average Philadelphian to do better then making $7 and hour at a hotel downtown, we are going to have two completely different Cities, all at the same time.
Good post.
A Circuitous Discourse: Some More Thoughts
Philadelphia has tried the high tax road for long enough--since WWII and what has it gotten us?
Ray, I love your post and agree in general with your assessment. I don’t necessarily think that prescription of fostering niche industries is one that works for Philadelphia because I worry about unintended consequences. Unfortunately, we do not operate in a five-country mayoral dictatorship where we can create the regional cooperation necessary for success. The primary unintended consequence that scares me is that anytime politicians initiate a program that costs serious money, it provides an extremely poor return on investment whether it is NTI, PA Economic Development Funds or Innovation Philadelphia. Before I get to other issues, I would like to pose some questions that I have from previous discussions.
If someone can dig up the revenue figures that indicate big business would get such a great break or that they contribute an extraordinary amount to Philly’s tax revenue, I’d like to know about it. How many businesses are there in Philadelphia that earn more than 10 million a year? How much do they pay in taxes? What percentage of Philadelphia city residents do they employee? But I digress.
I do have a fundamental disagreement with those who argue for investing in education and government services: I don’t believe Philadelphia can compete—attracting residents or jobs--based on proving superior government services including education. It must reform enough of its red tape so that its service is adequate. (Andrew Cassell—who is often good at missing the point--had a decent article in the Inquirer recently on how political leaders had a vested interest in the mediocre zoning system we currently have. I'm with YPP on reform all the way.) The attractiveness of living in Philadelphia may never be based on its school system—it will be its neighborhoods, its pedestrian friendliness, its communities and the fact that you can find an affordable house where you can avoid the two hour commute each way to the fifth ring of hell.
I think that to a certain extent YPP-ers have a point about investing in education as a way to create jobs. Certainly, turning out more computer scientists and biologists (or some small technical manufacturing jobs and dental technicians) would improve the lives of many who are being left behind if successful. Ray's proposal to invest in niche industries is great---I think it's a nice useful sound bite that more democrats should adopt--all the while also believing that it promises more than can be delivered. I would even be willing to allow that perhaps a few thousand, heck even 20,000 great jobs could be attracted or created though proper investments in Philadelphia. Almost nobody who is poorly educated and above the age of ten has a shot at these good jobs that pay good wages; they are already too far behind. These great jobs would probably not exist for five to ten years even if we were aggressive. Unfortunately, this city doesn't need 20,000 only jobs, it needs a 100,000 and it needs them yesterday.
The controversial book “Freakonomics” argues rather persuasively that the things that matters in determining how good an education a person gets are two factors: the Mother’s education level, and the values of peer groups. How much you spend per child and how much money the parents make matter very little. If you want your child to succeed, as an involved parent (moms only need apply), you can put them in the crummy local school system without negative results as long as they are not allowed the opportunity to interact unsupervised with badly-behaved peers. I won’t argue this is an easy task to pull off. Rather, I don’t see how investing in education has any likelihood of succeeding especially if there is no fundamental change in the way the school system operates and if there is no honest debate about how we foster racial integration. In addition, in my circle of friends of about ten people from Central, who admittedly had parents who were very involved, "zero" are currently living in Philly. That’s what you get for investing in education. Philadelphia cannot expect to go it alone—not when the suburbs are right next door.
I would argue that the US economy is so strong in good part because American companies have historically provided on the job training that allows people to be productive middle class workers—bank lenders, dental technicians and construction workers. If there are no jobs, there is no job training. I admit there is a little bit of a chicken and egg argument here but I’d argue that if you have jobs, education comes with the package and so eventually will tax revenues.
About ninety percent of the businesses in the US, over half of the employees and almost all of the economic growth are due to small businesses. What we do know is that big businesses probably won’t come here if taxes are higher than competitor areas. Zero fortune five hundred corporations have relocated to inside of a major US city in the past thirty years once they have left. In every case that I know of, they moved to areas where there were lower taxes. (Barnett, “Who really pays taxes?”) The only reason Comcast sticks around is because Rendell lets them keep their monopoly; otherwise they would have been in Camden. I think they should have been allowed to leave in the interest of creating an equitable environment for business and saying screw the monopoly that costs Philadelphians hundreds of millions of dollars in extra money so they can watch HBO. It is absolutely imperative that we make our city friendly to small business and middle class residents.
One of the catches of building an economy based on small businesses is that they do tend to cheat on taxes. Small businesses owners account for 50% of the tax evasion that occurs in this country even though only about 1 in 5 small business owners is a serious tax cheat. (Wealthy individuals account for the majority of the rest. Even if you added up all the small and working class evasions it would even come close to 10% of total tax evasion.) I don’t have access to Lexus Nexus at the moment but the figures I quote are from an article I read about probably about a year ago on rates of tax evasion. I don’t really have a solution for catching tax cheats but from an informal survey of friend would suggest that Philadelphia’s high taxes contribute to tax evasion. (Ask all the yuppie people who pay taxes at their parent’s houses in the suburbs!) Besides, I also don’t really care about tax evasion since small business owners tend to support themselves, have a decent standard of living and contribute to their communities in other ways. Another issue is that small businesses often only circulate the money that already exists in their community without attracting capital from other areas. I know this is not a perfect analysis of the situation but I’m throwing out some issues. Yet, I see no real alternative.
I would argue that yes, Idaho, Fargo, N.D., Seattle and other places in the U.S. that have better educational systems and more equitable economic growth and a possibly a higher standard of living (although that’s debatable), also are generally—more homogeneous than Philadelphia (i.e. not as diverse so racism is not the thorn it is here) and that they have positive feedback systems going, where their economic growth increases tax revenues which allows them to invest in education and foster more growth. Philadelphia has a negative feedback going.
There was an experiment in Chicago that basically bribed whites to live with blacks and it was moderately successful until the bribes ran out. Would tax cuts be a bribe to Philadelphia’s middle class? Perhaps. If you have racism, as we do, that prevents people from accessing the decent jobs that are available—this also poses a serious obstacle to progress—but I have yet to hear an honest of politically feasible way of overcoming this problem. (Busting the trade union would be a really quick way to change the current dynamic that excludes uneducated minorities from jobs that they could perform.) Leaving aside the questions of race and taxes, Philadelphia is extremely distinct from places that tend to grow with niche industries in our country.
1) It doesn’t have as much immigration
2) It is not located in a place with strong regional growth, economically or population wise—we specialize in creating spawl while not growing much in population.
Your comment about Philadelphia leveraging its power to create jobs and equity scare me as noted above. I would argue that initiatives such Innovation Philadelphia and the Benjamin Franklin Technology Fund are basically a waste of money going to people who want to pretend they are solving problems. If you are going to argue for the creation of niche industries, you need to explain what more you want than what Rendell and some other leaders are currently doing. I’d support investments in Public Transportation, the provision of day care stipends to working parents, putting as much as we can afford into education—even if there are obstacles—but I will not support one more government program or raising taxes in Philadelphia. I also think that scatter site public housing should be the only kind of public housing allowed and that every neighborhood in Philadelphia must have single family homes, apartment buildings and row houses. The one area where Philadelphia is different form areas with growing economies is that it has a lower educated population--to the small extent that can be rectified—we should try—while tempering our expectations. I'm convinced that we can cut taxes alittle and reallocate how we spend our money so that in the long run, we come out ahead.
You are correct on the last point
50% on the amount of tax fraud, not the total hidden and not paid.
on population growth...
mike, i also want to urge to read part 2 of this economic series which is linked way above. I think i did a good job of arguing that the population loss problem has become mythic. population loss is less of an issue in philadelphia than wage quality loss. that's the whole point of the last two posts. philadelphia's peak population of 2.5 million was driven by industry and it was lost when industry downsized and went overseas. read that part and let me know what you think, but to.be clear, blaming population loss for philadelphia's problems is itself a balck and white. too simplistic perspective in what really happened here in the past 40 years.
More ideas to come
Ray,
I'll see what I can do about more ideas--so that a specific and workable plan can be developed to move our city forward. Maybe we could have a YPP brainstorming session in the new year with the goal of developing concrete proposals for our soon to be mayoral and city council candidates.
There will almost definately be real debates and that is when people who demand change have some leverage. Let's make sure that when those debates occur, we are present. Maybe we can even be a sponsor!!!
I like your optimism. It should beats the whinny annoying defenders of the status quo. See, I know that it sounds like I'm giving into the Republicans when I argue that Philadelphia should be responsible for its own affairs but seriously, I'd much rather have us try--in the tradition of the black power movement--to make our own prosperity to the extent that we can. You are right that we haven't had any serious proposals to improve the competitive advantages that Philadelphia offers.
I'm well aware of your posts on population loss being overstated. In some ways you are right. Two key components to economic growth include population growth and productivity growth. In theory, you are right, we can grow through investing in our human resources. One of the challenges is that from what I know at least--productivity growth in fact accounts for the small real economic growth that the city sustains each year. How much can that be accelerated? That remains to be seen.
Clearly, I can not win or conclude a debate on economics on this page but I did inquire of some of my economics professors if they could provide some feedback on our debate and I will let you know if they response to my questions. If I have some worthwhile ideas...I'll post.
Just to keep an eye on the prize
Philadelphia has a high rate of poverty relative to the state and relative to other cities in the country. Some of that is no doubt due to the fact that the people who hold high paying jobs located in Philadelphia County live outside the county. This leads many to argue that the way to revive Philadelphia is to attract the commuters back; this strategy would lower the poverty rate not by lowering the absolute numbers of impoverished people but by increasing the number of folks who are not poor.
The approach that I believe is both more appropriate and more likely to succeed is to lower the poverty rate by reducing the number of people who are poor. What Ray is getting at is just this kind of strategy, how do we connect city residents with good jobs.
One place to start is universal access to all manners of early childhood education and day care. Being poor in America means you have to work. Given the cost of day care a lot parents end up not finding care or relying on sub-standard care and education arrangements. This means that young children in Philadelphia come to school less prepared than their counterparts in the suburbs. Even after age five children need supervision when school is not in session which again poses great problems for working parents and society.
Another place to start is vocational and higher education, young people from poor communities in Philadelphia need to be connected to programs that both subsidize the cost of this education and link them to high paying jobs with a future. The range of options here is quite wide, on one side of the spectrum the city needs tuition subsidies (for poor kids) for bachelors degrees obtained in science and engineering. At the other end are pre-apprenticeship training programs that prepare young people take the entrance exams for the apprenticeship programs offered by the building trades unions.
As an aside union sponsored apprenticeship programs in the construction industry nationally and in Pennsylvania train and graduate more women and minorities than non-union apprenticeship programs. Apprenticeship programs in the trades combine classroom instruction with on the job training all of which leads eventually to an associate degree. The great thing about these programs is that they are jointly financed by the unions and unionized contractors, worker rights are protected and employer skill needs are met. The end results, dirty back breaking jobs become careers with high pay, a health plan and a pension.
I go on not because there are enough jobs in construction to solve Philadelphia’s problems but because the union side of the construction industry is a model for an industry that gets it right, combining worker rights, good pay and critically employer needs to produce a high quality product. All within the confines of a marketplace where many firms compete for work on price.
Here Ray’s call for focus on clusters of activity is important. Identifying industries that are relatively strong in the region is the first of many steps that are needed to insure that the investments in training and education will eventually lead to employment locally. Assembling a group of employers (like what is done in the union side of construction) in related lines of business creates an opportunity for those employers to pool resources to finance common training needs. Once assembled public dollars can be targeted at these multiemployer groups to achieve a specific public policy goal like connecting a person from a poor household to a high paying job.
This highlights the problem with tax credits for employers that create a new job. A business (large or small) adds a new job because they need to, to meet demand. Tax incentives by themselves are not large enough to justify just adding somebody to the payroll. What they do in practice is reward a business for doing something they were going to do anyway, hire a new worker.
There are situations where rewarding businesses for doing something they were already going to do is appropriate like advancing public policy goal. A business may have a need for a certain kind of skilled labor and given the need will put out the money to hire and train a worker. I can imagine a program where a public subsidy is provided if the new worker hired to be trained comes from a household living somewhere below 200 percent of poverty. The business is still being rewarded for doing something they were going to do anyway (train and hire a new worker) but the public money only comes if a goal is achieved like connecting a low income worker to a high paying job.
The federal government's role in higher wages
Bush will get right on that! :)
WWGjr
GOODE Record on Higher Wages
I have offered two measures regarding higher wages that have become law this term .
1)This spring, Mayor Street signed my local minimum wage legislation into law. The Philadelphia 21st Century Minimum Wage Standard Law, unanimously approved by City Council, requires City-supported employees to be paid at least 150% of the federal or state minimum wage, whichever is higher.
2)Last year, I amended and made permanent my New Jobs Tax Credit Program. It now has an alternative incentive to lure higher-paying jobs to the city - by offering a 2% credit for new job wages to the employer. My original tax credit gave a flat $1,000-per-job credit to businesses that create new jobs. The alternative credit is a better incentive for jobs paying over $50,000.
But that's just a start. Ray is right. We need to focus!
WWGjr
Need More Info
Mike-
some good food for thought and before I respond in detail, i do need some more info from you: what cities or states have implemented tax cuts for business and seen a gain in jobs AND quality of wages? Is there a proven correlation between tax cuts and creation of high wage jobs? (I have not seen any evidence to support this, and Mark knows more than I do, but if it exists, I'd like to see it).
If, as you say "Zero fortune five hundred corporations have relocated to inside of a major US city in the past thirty years once they have left," does that mean that the cities and states where these companies left from have not cut taxes in an effort to woo them back? In other words, if no one else has gotten big business back due to tax cutting, why would we be successful?
Lastly, I can name about 20 of my classmates at Central (256!) who do live and work in the city despite impressive degrees from impressive places (not to mention my own less impressive degree from Pitt). I therefore directly challenge your argument about retention of youth via education with my own anecdotal evidence ;)
Questions
You say:
"The controversial book “Freakonomics” argues rather persuasively that the things that matters in determining how good an education a person gets are two factors: the Mother’s education level, and the values of peer groups. How much you spend per child and how much money the parents make matter very little."
The research I've seen says that the single best predictor of future earnings (and I would assume to some degree, educational level) of a given individual is their socio-economic background. This is a very complicated issue that isn't served well by gross generalizations, and the concept that "how much money the parents make" matters little, is very simplistic if not totally absurd at face value.
You go on to say:
"you can put them in the crummy local school system without negative results as long as they are not allowed the opportunity to interact unsupervised with badly-behaved peers."
Even if it were possible, which it isn't, do you really believe it?
I won't disagree with the contention that greater funding of a dysfunctional school system won't necessarily bring about the desired results. Further, I fully agree that investing in education has a lessened "…likelihood of succeeding especially if there is no fundamental change in the way the school system operates and if there is no honest debate about how we foster racial integration." But that doesn't negate the fact that increased funding is a fundamental necessity for making our school system more functional (check out some of Price's posts on that issue).
And statistics about where your classmates at Central wound up, not even considering Ray's different perspective about where his classmates at Central wound up, only looks at one side of the coin. Turning the coin over, you have to consider that the majority of the poor Philadelphians who don't relocate don't attend schools like Central. Even assuming that your friends are more reflective of larger trends than Ray's, investing in education would bring about many results other than simply a relatively high percentage of students that attend better schools moving away. So then, without improving bad schools, how do you prevent a greater concentration of low earning potential residents if you don't improve access to better education?
And I question your figures on tax fraud. When you have a chance, I'd really like to see more about the statistic that "Small businesses owners account for 50% of the tax evasion that occurs in this country." Are you sure that doesn't refer to the number of tax frauds and not the amount of revenue? If you are, I find that very hard to believe, and certainly would question whether it takes into account the "legal" ways that large corporations have access to tax avoidance that isn't available to small businesses (off-shoring, tax havens, anyone?).
Actually I correct myself
Of the total amount of tax fax in revenue terms, fifty percent is committed by small businesses. It is quite understandable--small businesses owners expense everything including their shore houses, home maids and family cars and they raise hell when they are investigated for tax evasion. I will see if I can find the paper where I footnoted this finding and let you know.
Also, I highly recommend reading Freakonomics. No, I don't deny that investing more money would make a difference in education--at the end of my post, I allowed that yes we should invest more in education even if there are obstacles.
The Job Creation Tax Credit set the local minimum wage standard!
I agree that incentives, including job creation tax credits, don't create jobs ... businesses do.
BUT the local job creation tax credit has had multiple purposes:
1)It is a transparent incentive that is easily packaged with other economic development tools like low interest financing and low cost land.
2)It serves as a local incentive that is packaged with the state job creation tax credit to lure businesses to Philadelphia ... and not just Pennsylvania.
3)It set a local minimum wage standard at 150% of the federal minimum wage that was later applied to more City-supported employees.
4)It requires that the business remain in Philadelphia for five years as a retention tool - and has "clawback" provisions if the business moves or does not create the jobs.
5)It includes and promotes employment of ex-offenders.
6)It includes and promotes the 2% alternative for higher-paying jobs.
7)It is an incentive that addresses the uncompetitive business tax structure in an equitable manner.
And that's off the top of my head. :)
But your point is well taken.
Yet, as long as we are using economic development incentives locally - the job creation tax credit may be the most fair and transparent tool that we have, and the first to directly address job quality in terms of wages.
WWGjr
He's too busy getting indicte
He's too busy getting indicted.
Tax Payer-funded Brainwashing of our Poorest Citizens?
Mark, your comments are good. I’m with you on the day care support. Better trade and vocational training is definitely an avenue that offers substantial promise. I think your idea on tuition support for science majors at local colleges is also a good idea. One issue that I would argue is that the great majority of the individuals who are prepared for college in Philadelphia—go to college. Yes, I know there are affordability issues for way more than just poorer city residents. I don’t necessarily see how tuition funding would allow many new people who are not prepared for college to succeed or allow them to pursue a high tech track. I could bash the unions but I’ll refrain on this post.
Perhaps it is worth providing a little background here so that in reinventing the wheel, we don’t, and we keep in mind what workforce development efforts are being undertaken now. Tens of millions of dollars are currently being spent on workforce development. The legislature and Rendell allocated 91 million dollars over the summer (no, not just to Philly but we got a good bit of it). Some of the money goes to support students at community college, including an enlarged trade school and health assistant track which is good stuff. Much of the money goes to fund programs that are simply not making a difference. My point in tell the following story is not to illustrate that we are spending enough—which I don’t know—but to suggest that we are misallocating major amounts of money dishonestly.
I'm sure there is substantial federal and city money involved too since workforce development is the latest initiative created to confront poverty without really changing the way the system works. I'm not impressed with what’s going on in workforce development and I think we should be careful when we advocate huge new programs because of what they may look like.
Much of the Workforce Development funds are being spent on life skills classes, budgeting classes for people looking for work, counselors who will take your information and give you a case number—yippie!!! (I’m being extremely sarcastic.) Now, in the abstract, I think some leadership and life skills classes are needed. But if there was a job paying a living wage—people would actually be motivated to show up on time and have the financial resources to do so. Would they really need a life skills class? Heaven help you if you don’t want to give your social security number so big brother can track you if you should, heaven forbid, show up in the system again, or if you are an immigrant.
The money allocated is also funding upgrades of the Career Link centers around the city, the career link website and is paying to hire job developers and case workers. How many YPP readers have ever looked for a job on the career link website? Why is our government investing hundreds of thousands of dollars and possibly millions—into a website that very few people will use? Don’t we have Craig’s List and Monster and Hotjobs as good sites to see job listings? (Most people get jobs from friends so getting a job through the web is more promise than reality in any event.) But that’s not my entire issue either, have your ever tried to applied for a job for our federal government or for a corporation online? It’s a nightmare. (As a matter of personal policy, I refuse. I figure the company doesn't really need me that much if it's instituting such a hassle.) My point is: why are we investing so much money in a website that 1) most people will never use and 2) that isn’t geared for those on the wrong side of the digital divide? In addition, in a new move for the overbearing accountability that our government strives for, the agencies that received the contracts to help individuals find jobs have to meet goals each year. If they are good, they get Aramark or Citizens Bank to cooperate and provide support and job leads. If they are not, they spin their wheels and waste our money. Almost all the jobs are in food services, telephone banking or insurance sales and pay about $8 an hour, maybe $12. The upside is probably $15. According to Ray--that's practically poverty level wages. These jobs aren’t jobs that would be unfilled without the workforce development program funds. They aren’t even jobs that are created because there is a new pool of workers. For the most part, they definitely aren’t jobs that will help people earn more in the long run. But the workforce development agency counsels the poor individual to stick with the job they are sent to fill. The corporations benefit a little because the program lowers worker turnover. Now, I know, a lot of you are thinking—there goes Mike again, he is off his rocket bashing services to the poor. I don’t know what to say to that because I view it quite differently. Our political leaders, our bureaucratic policy makers and our corporate leaders are perfectly fine with workforce development as is currently arranged. Me, I have another name for it: Tax payer-funded brainwashing of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens.
I think that investing so much in these workforce development programs is hypocritical on the part of just about everyone involved and that if this is the best we can do—then we should cut taxes accordingly. One of my economics professors said that Philadelphia basically can allocate a few paper clips because almost all of its spending is committed by federal and state law, and public municipal contracts years in advance. Maybe I’m getting riled up about a few paper clips here and there and that I should concentrate on the big picture which is that our poorest citizens are getting screwed. But in Philadelphia, the things that we can control are the paper clips and I don’t think it’s too much to ask that we make sure that we avoid public policies that cost a lot and give us very little in return. If the purpose of the program is to provide employment to the job developers or the bureaucrats, I’d much rather just initiate a government works program as Ben proposes, give out college tuition scholarships or figure out some other way in which we can make a difference. I would not consider defending the status quo progressive.
Mano a Mano on an Investment Basis Loses
Ray,
As much as you may think from my postings, I am not for the BPT elimination. (I think elimination of the Gross Receipts tax and a modest 20% reduction in taxes of all forms would do the trick for me but please forget that for a moment.) I think your focus on taxes are almost besides the point in your argument of how we should solve problems. In fact, I'd agree that tax are not the primary issue--like security, city zoning enforcement and schools. But taxes are a part of the equation. Let me reverse the question, do you admit that higher taxes might just be a competitive disadvantage in attracting and growing businesses?
I think your claim that companies didn't leave cities because of higher taxes is somewhat black and white. Numerous federal policies actively encouraged the migration of residents and companies from cities. Taxes (and tax breaks) played a part.
I don't want big business back in particular. I definately don't want them to get subsidies or tax breaks which are counter productive. The businesses, small, medium and big will come back and be created because we offer a fair environment and ultimately the competitive advantage of being located in Philadelphia is substantial as long as the trade offs are not too much. Where that point may be is a subjective point but I don't really see it as all that debatable.
Why will cutting taxes increase jobs? Chris Satullo at the Inquirer said two weekends ago, if you tax something you get less of it. I agree. I think that in all probability sometimes the Laffer curve is right and sometimes it is wrong. Sometimes the effects are not immediate. I would argue that the increased tax revenues at the beginning of the 1990s—as much as I hate Reagan—were because companies invested his tax cuts in the 1980s to good effect. There is no way to guarantee that cutting taxes will not hurt revenues. I think that your asking for evidence that tax cuts generate growth is a tough one to answer. For the purposes of the dicussion, please allow that I am conceding on this point.
There is just about only one guaranteed way to increase both jobs and tax revenues in the long term and that’s to increase population. As long as Philadelphia is losing residents, it is highly unlikely it will see long term real net increases in jobs—let alone good jobs--or tax revenues. The bottom line is that if Philadelphia can't reverse the decling population--well, all the investments in whatever services you'd like to provide are basically a waste of money. Our discussion is moot. We might as well give up now. I believe that reducing taxes--along with the substantially smarter investments in our city--that you are arguing for will make a difference. I believe that our city already has many of the resources it needs to make some of these investments. My desire to invest billions in public transit probably isn't feasible but maybe when our skies are choked will polution, the idiots in Harrisburg will figure out that they should pony up some money. Actually, there is the very real chance they won't--they may live in their clean exurban cul de sacs and be content that their life is good. That is their understandable self interest.
You maintain that focusing so much on the middle class that is leaving is misguided. I disagree. At issue is the same issue that the Catholic church is facing when closing Parishes. If you lose only half your parishioners but you lose 75% of your revenue stream, that's huge. Pardon my for-example numbers. As Mark and others have pointed out, that penalizes the people who make the decision to stay behind with an increased burden. Such is the never ending negative feedback.
I admit that my personal anecdote about friends leaving the city was somewhat melodramatic. But it is well documented that overall Philadelphia suffers a brain drain of educated people out of the city and out of the region. It is not as bad as it may have been a few years ago, but it still exists.
Finally: GOOD WAGES, I agree that they are what this city ideally needs. They are what our country needs. However, given that we are a tale of two cities and a country that is increasing divided, that is the result of way more than Philadelphia political decisions. It is the result of how our society as a whole has partialed out resources. A minimum wage bill won't do much to change that. It would take state and federal policies that increase national corporate taxes, a unionized walmart and many other change to reduce social inequities in our society. Getting more independent Board of Directors to realize that paying CEOs 500 times the median wage isn't really a good return on investment would also help.
In planning for Philadelphia's future, I believe that we must always anticipate a worse case scenario. I think that Philadelphia will have more jobs and more power to go its own way if it changes its business climate--and on that I know we are on the same page even if the details are murky--than if we continue on the track we are now.
In my humble opinion, however, having higher taxes differenciates us from the suburbs. The increased lack of shared self interest in our society is not deniable. It gives PA politicians--Republicans in particular, a huge advantage when running for office to run against Philadelphia. The bottom line is that if our city has to go "mano a mano" on an investment basis, we will always lose. If we go "mano to mano" on other issues and where the economic gaps is not so vast, we have a much better chance of winning because money is only one type of power: it neglects relationships, community and ideas. If we want to have an economy that is equal to our suburban counter parts, or at least more equal, and to gain political currency--we need to reduce the differences that exist economically and we will overwhelm them in every other fashion.
I look forward to the third installment of your series.
next post please
these posts and comments take a lot of energy to write, which in all my christmas cheer, I have little of right now. so i will saver most of my "answers" for mike for another post.
I think DE (Josh) makes a great point: most Philadelphians don't leave and don't even go to college. focusing all of our energy on the increasingly small native middle class population leaves out a lot of people. Mike, i hear what you are saying about retaining the people who give more to the revenue pie, but even if you kept everyone, you'll never really catch up until fundamental wage inequities are corrected.
further, i just don't share your sense of hopelessness. there are strategic economic development decsions that the city could be making that would improve wages. very few serious attempts have been done so far in pursuit of this goal.
yes, part of what i am suggesting is cultivating clusters of companies around particular indsutries (i will post more about this soom) but it also means common sense things like not giving tax abatements to market driven home or office construction.
the big question, and i would love to hear suggestions here for my next post, is what are specific ideas people have about building a high road economy with career ladders that could improve wages in the city.
This might be an obvious ques
This might be an obvious question, but why can't the city government just hire a ton more workers?
The city has enough money to consider giving millions of dollars in a tax break to Comcast. Why not levy a tax on Comcast and use that money to hire thousands of people to fix up crumbling houses and preform other types of much-needed work around the city?
This might be a little bit counterinuative, but why are we spending millions of dollars on paying private companies to preform basic services? We've privatized many essential services that could be done by Philadelphia.
I think my comment might make a few conservatives and their allies in our local Democratic Party (Nutter) to go nuts. Still, does anyone have an answer rooted in logic and reason?
Good points
Councilman, you make some good points and should be applauded for the living wage and clawback provisions in the legislation.
oh, you crazy dreamer, you
it's only his pals that are getting indicted...
acm
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
— Margaret Mead
The Art of Being Outraged and Uninformed
I apologize both for beating a dead horse and doing so in such an untimely manner but I felt some of Mike’s (Mdcphilly) comments needed to be addressed.
Mdcphilly wrote “Much of the Workforce Development funds are being spent on life skills classes, budgeting classes for people looking for work, counselors who will take your information and give you a case number…”
What an interesting choice of words, much! Vague enough that you can use it without really having a clue about precisely how much money is spent on life skills classes, budgeting classes and counselor salaries.
What is workforce development money spent on?
Providing adult basic education which includes teaching people to read, helping people get their GED, and connecting them to further vocational and higher education.
Money is targeted specifically at unemployed young adults through programs like the Pennsylvania Conservation Corps. This is a modern version of the New Deal’s Civilian Conservation Corps which in addition to providing employment to unemployed youth provides basic education and some training. According to Pennsylvania Partnership for Children there were more than 21,000 teenagers and young adults (ages 16 to 21) in Philadelphia County not enrolled in school and not employed in the 2000 Census (http://www.papartnerships.org/youthunemployment/idle_16-21.asp). This links back to a question Dan asked above, one potential area for a public employment program is a Philadelphia Conservation Corps (PCC) for young adults. Such a program in addition to money to pay for it would require an agreement with the public employees unions, essentially an assurance that the PCC would not displace existing city workers. I assume it could also be structured in a way to bypass participation in the city pension fund.
Workforce Development money is also targeted at dislocated workers (people laid off from a job). One serious problem of the last quarter century is the elimination, through technological change and trade, of well paying jobs held by people with a high school education or less. While these people are highly skilled in their own right the elimination of the jobs they are trained for drives them to compete in labor markets where their remaining skills are of little value. These people often bound by long term contracts (like a home mortgage) made when they had a high paying job and the future was bright are forced into untenable financial situations. Where there is one dislocated worker there are usually more, making the option of selling the family home difficult, raising the risk of foreclosure and bankruptcy. In communities severely affected by this kind of job loss rates of divorce, violent crime and drug abuse increase. All of this ends up providing new blood for the cycle of poverty. The workforce development system makes an incomplete effort to intervene by funding re-training for these workers. This training attempts to provide them with the skills necessary to compete in a labor market where they can earn wages and benefits equivalent to the job lost. These kinds of programs are perpetually under-funded.
Mdcphilly wrote “How many YPP readers have ever looked for a job on the career link website? Why is our government investing hundreds of thousands of dollars and possibly millions—into a website that very few people will use?.....My point is: why are we investing so much money in a website that 1) most people will never use and 2) that isn’t geared for those on the wrong side of the digital divide?”
You are correct that most people find jobs through informal networks of contacts but for people without those networks (that would also be those as you say “on the wrong side of the digital divide”) the next option is to rely on some kind of help wanted listing. To your second point, Short of putting a computer in each household the Careerlink attempts to span the digital divide by providing access to the web onsite. A web-based job posting system is also more efficiently managed.
Mdcphilly wrote “Almost all the jobs are in food services, telephone banking or insurance sales and pay about $8 an hour, maybe $12. The upside is probably $15. According to Ray--that's practically poverty level wages. These jobs aren’t jobs that would be unfilled without the workforce development program funds. They aren’t even jobs that are created because there is a new pool of workers. For the most part, they definitely aren’t jobs that will help people earn more in the long run.”
The workforce development system as designed by the folks in Washington D.C. is primarily a job matching institution; it links firms with an opening with workers in need of a job. It is beginning to do a better job in Pennsylvania and the nation of providing training to workers to help them get a better paying job. Pennsylvania for example under the Rendell administration is taking steps to make sure that more training dollars flow to jobs that both pay well and are in high demand. That said I see no reason why an employer even one with an opening for $5.15 should be prevented from listing job openings on the Careerlink site (listing should practically costless). However I would argue that job training dollars should not be spent to train people for occupations that pay $5.15.
You have however stumbled onto an important issue. Facilitating job matching by itself will not solve America’s or Philadelphia’s problem with the working poor. The economy is not producing enough high paying jobs. While it is important to train people better, provide better basic and higher education (vocational and otherwise) another key dimension is creating institutions that organically create new high paying jobs or transform existing bad jobs.
One example of a potentially innovative practice, is a workforce development region in West Virginia where officials are trying to establish what is in effect a temporary employment firm, that provides hospitality workers (maids, wait staff, etc) to what is in the region a relatively large base of employers. The idea is that a single firm could help the regions employers of hospitality workers pool training costs and provide the workers with full year employment (facilitate movement from summer oriented hospitality employers to winter oriented hospitality employers). The single employer could exploit its size to offer health insurance and the cost savings in training and turnover could create room for higher wages. What is lacking in the West Virginia approach is a third party, a union. A union is needed in such environments to enforce agreements across multiple firms: left to their own devices the incentive to cheat (free ride) on these agreements is too great for firms to resist, the result is that they don’t survive unless a union is present to police and enforce the agreement. And of course a union provides additional workplace rights which make these jobs more attractive to job seekers.
Here clusters are also important, a classic example is Silicon Valley but Pennsylvania has current examples like the powdered metals industry and to some degree pharmaceuticals. Conglomerations of economic activity in related lines of business create pools of talent that no only aid in the development of an industry but become a breeding ground for new startups. Historically these conglomerations are the happy accidents of history and outrageous fortune but there is no reason to believe that policy can’t support these clusters in a way that strengthens them and prolongs their life. Here I’m reminded a story about a steel plant out west where the workers had to strike to get management to install new equipment, after the big steel shakeout guess which plant was still operating because its new equipment made production possible in a new low price environment. Creating institutions where employers come together share training costs and learn from one another is a simple way in which to stimulate this kind of activity. Eliminating poverty requires bending the winds of economic change not surrendering to them as we have done in the past two decades.
Mdcphilly wrote “Now, I know, a lot of you are thinking—there goes Mike again, he is off his rocket bashing services to the poor…”
Yes there you go again. What you bash most consistently in your posts are civil servants, you make in most cases vague and unsubstantiated claims that these folks are overpaid and that there are too many of them. Bad apples abound, they are in elected office, the Fortune 500 hundred, the civil service or on a street corner with a loaded pistol. However I would not assume they exist everywhere and at all times and would expect claims of inefficient or ineffective service to be backed up by some evidence that goes beyond what my uncle’s brother-in-law heard from a friend who read it on a bathroom wall.
Mdcphilly wrote “I think that investing so much in these workforce development programs is hypocritical on the part of just about everyone involved and that if this is the best we can do—then we should cut taxes accordingly.”
Now there is a well reasoned argument, the state and federal governments spend too much money on workforce development so let us cut city taxes.
Mdcphilly wrote “I would not consider defending the status quo progressive.”
Nothing is perfect. The workforce development system could be much better, on top of that it is chronically underfunded. And I would add that in making policy it is important to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I shouldn’t but I can’t resist reacting to a line drawn in the sand about what is progressive and what is not. It is not progressive to argue as you have in an earlier post “Almost nobody who is poorly educated and above the age of ten has a shot at these good jobs that pay good wages; they are already too far behind”, it is callous and naïve but not progressive.
I will reply more to this lat
I will reply more to this later, but, you reaaaally lose me with this:
The increased revenues were because of Reagan tax cuts??? The 90s saw increased tax revenues, directly following tax INCREASES.
The Laffer curve was a big, effing scam. So was supply side economics. Greg Mankiw, one of the most respected, brilliant minds in economics, called the Laffer-Supply Side Stuff "voodoo economics" in his widely used principles of economics text book. Mankiw is no flaming liberal, straight out of Chicago, etc... He then had to get rid of that phrase in the book... when he went to work for Dubya.
But seriously, supply side was disgraceful. And, you think the tax cuts of Reagan, which gave us defecits as far as the eye can see, helped? Between Reagan and our economic boom, we had taxes RAISED, by both Bush I, and then by Clinton. That is, we had a shitty economy, and then, after two tax hikes, we hit the boom. Now, a lot of things went into the '90s boom, like the internet, etc, but, really considering taxes were raised by two presidents after Reagan, that is a silly argument to make. Bush II bringing back supply side, after it was discredited by all but the most nutjob people in economics, was really a great example of policy not mattering in the Bush Administration; You say something enough, like Global warming is not real, and people just start talking along. Supply side is voodoo? Just erase it from the text books, and all will be well.
It is the difference between Republicans and those of us in the "reality based community."
The long term costs of healthcare and pensions
Ben-
The simple answer is - the long term costs of healthcare and pensions - not just wages - make it cost-prohibitive to position the local government as the future generator of job growth.
WWGjr
With All Due Respect
Which is better, being unemployed or having a job without healthcare and pensions?
Are there a lot of jobs that pay decent healthcare and pension costs right now? Frankly, I don't see a ton. From the economic stuff I have looked at (mostly from the Philadelphia Business Journal and the Inquirer), most job creation is happening in extremely fluid industries where people have no job security or protection.
Some supporters of the building trade unions might claim that if the government hired a bunch people to clean stuff up, it would undercut wages and benefits in their core industry. But that is just hogwash. These "new" employees wouldn't be available on the free market. Thus, they wouldn’t undercut the wages and benefits paid to the building trades for construction projects. Instead, they would only work on specific programs where no private sector funding is available. In particular, I can think of several neighborhoods where no significant source of private funding is available. Token handouts from Rick Santorum don’t count.
By creating economic activity, a program of public employment would help spur economic development and hopefully recreate a thriving private sector in communities currently left behind. Gradually, wages would climb as well as benifits.
As for opposition from the public sector unions, I believe that both Cronin and Matthews (but particularly Cronin) would be willing to support a program of public employment. They might be a little put off by the idea of providing substandard pension and healthcare benefits, but I think they would see that the positives of this proposal out weigh the negatives.
Obviously, this proposal would need to be more thought out and complicated than what I am presenting. But it could be done, no matter what the Chamber of Commerce says.
I am sure that some people with respond with claims that this proposal is overly idealist. I would say that any proposal that claims tax cuts will somehow create sustainable economic growth is idealist. I wish we could just magically create jobs and end poverty with tax cuts. However, that is an overly simplified and immature way to look at the world. If we as a society want to help people get out of poverty, we've got provide them opportunities to do so. This means creating jobs and government is the best institution to preform that task.
EDIT: This post shouldn't be taken as a criticism of Councilman Goode's leadership. As far as I'm concerned, he's the best guy we've got and is one of the only voices of sanity in the local economic debate.
Ok, re-reading the posts abov
Ok, re-reading the posts above mine, I can see some of the flaws in my argument. The City of Philadelphia might not be large enough to actually provide a long-term solution to problem of not enough jobs for residents.
Still, I tend to think the federal government is a big enough institution to create large-scale employment that forces wages and benifits to rise.
Govt. Not the Employer of Last Resort
Local, state, or federal govt. can never be relied upon to be the employer of last resort. The Federal Govt., City government, and School District already employ 81,080 people in the City. Councilman Goode's response was right on.
Why not?
If the private sector can't or won't provide good jobs, why shouldn't government be the employer of last resort? You seem to have some kind of irrational faith in the free market.
1/3 of Philadelphia's citizens live in poverty. I'm not really sure what kind of crisis you're waiting for. Philly Phantom, can you provide some logical arguments against why having the state provide direct economic opporunity is bad? Please provide specific examples that can be used to make a quantitative argument.
Because
Don't have an irrational faith in the free market, do you have an irrational faith in government? Don't you think there'd be more of a crisis in Philadelphia if more public funds were diverted to keep people on some kind of "workfare" program and more middle and upper middle class people were driven out because they continued to actually get or perceive they were getting less value for their tax dollars? Not saying that the state shouldn't provide some jobs, but they already do - government in Philadelphia provides a plurality of the jobs here - I didn't even throw in places like PHA, PGW, and the PPA. Can you provide specific examples of your position that can be used to make a quantitative argument? Bottom line, we need a competitive tax structure with targeted tax incentives (thanks Councilman Goode) to creat good paying, private sector jobs that have health benefits. Communism didn't work.
Communism and social welfare are not the same thing
No, I don't think there would be more of a crisis. I think having 1/3 of your citizens living in poverty is crisis enough. People are not leaving the city because of high taxes. They are leaving the city because it has become a terrible place to live due to unemployment, crime, and the slow erosion of city services. I can't really imagine how it could get worse-- unless we cut the BPT and further destroy the ability of government to provide basic services.
I think you're conflating the difference between a public workers program designed to combat the inherent flaws of a free market and communism. Conservatives have punk'd our nation so hard that we think any type of social welfare program is the same as communism. That's just silly. If you're confused about what I'm saying, I suggest you read the following books: The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich August von Hayek and Right Face: Organizing the American Conservative Movement 1945-65 by Niels Bjerre-Poulsen. The Road to Serfdom is the pretty much the foundation of modern conservative thought and Right Face provides a great (European) intellecutal critique of conservatives in the U.S.
Alrighty Then
People leave the City for a variety of reasons; as much as you might hate to admit it, taxes are one of those reasons. More importantly, businesses (not people) do think a lot about taxes when they decide whether to locate or expand here. Let me repeat for emphasis - one of - not the only, but one of the reasons why people/businesses leave this wonderful City is because of the high and cumbersome tax burden. Businesses provide jobs to people; this is a good thing. That's why we need to continue move towards a more competitive tax structure and City Council and those running for Mayor in '07 realize this. We can reduce the BPT - eliminate the gross receipts portion and bring the net income rate down to the same as the wage tax. The City can afford it. We've wasted more than that on other things (remember "safe streets"). I don't have time to read the books you've suggested - I'm sure they're very informative. I'm not conflating anything, but your suggestion that we increase government jobs as a way to deal with unemployment or poverty in Philly doesn't make any sense - it's just not the way it's done effectively. Government has a great responsibility to its citizens, like setting the economic stage so that job creation can take place, not actually providing that job - it's really inefficient to do so.
And Another Thing
Poor people, by and large - don't leave the City - they cannot afford to do so. So, while their neighborhoods may be plauged by the ills you suggest and while we have a moral imperative to address such problems, the poor of Philadelphia are not moving out. Middle and upper middle class people move out - at least that's what the census data tells us - from neighborhoods that are doing better than most or even great. These people move out because they feel they are not getting a good value for their taxes, not necessarily because their taxes are too high. The biggest aspect of this "lack of value for their tax dollar feeling" is the lack of quality educational options. Thankfully, this is changing dramatically and Vallas and his gang are doing much to increase educational options for all Philadelphians, but in particular those "mobile" Philadelphians who have the financial capital to pick up and go. This is good because when middle and upper middle class people stay, we keep their tax dollars here in Philadlephia as well as their social and intellectual capital which - to some extent - can be directed to the betterment of all.
Seeing through the smoke screen
You made one actual point in your response.
Here is my response to that: numerous studies have been done, by both AFSCME and other independent organizations, that have found this is simply not true. The private sector is not more effective or effect than the public sector. I would link to the studies, but you've already said you don't have time to read anything.
I don't really know what else to say. Myself and other people on this site have pointed out the inherent flaws in your arguments. We've done it over and over. It's almost as though you refuse to read our responses and just answer the points you'd wish we'd made.
Here is my suspicion, Mr. Philly Phantom. You're either working for a 2007 candidate or some organization closely aligned with a specific campaign. You're testing sound bites and talking point on this site. That might have worked with another group of kids, but the people associated with YPP aren't going help you elect Michael Nutter or any other business mouthpiece mayor of Philadelphia. It's time for regular people to have a voice in government again.
Shorter Philly Phantom
Poor people can't leave the city, so screw 'em.
That's just not the type of person I am. At least you're willing to admit where you're coming from. So many people parrot the talking points of the right-wing and don't even know that they're doing it.
Oversimplified
There are some things the government can do better, some things the private sector can do better, and some things things the private sector can't do and some things that government can't do. The trick is finding the right mix of government and private (or non-profit) services to do what needs to be done.
Not Exactly
Didn't say screw them - not the kind of person I am either, just said that they're not leaving the City - see the distinction? Just offering a different point of few than you; one that can be backed up by a survey of census data.
I agree 100%
and I think a public works program might do more to make this city a better place than a cut in the BPT. Philly Phantom, what do you think?