Tim Bartik

Useful article by @patricktuohey.bsky.social at @thehill.com regarding Tulsa Remote, in part drawing on my research on Tulsa Remote. thehill.com/opinion/fina.... As article says, part of reason why Tulsa Remote can have success is that it is cheaper per job induced than typical business incentives.

A place-based economic development strategy to foster rural U.S. prosperity How a three-pronged, place-based strategy to spur economic growth in rural communities across the country boasts proven success.

Today, @equitablegrowth.bsky.social released their second series of papers on the rise of right-wing populism.

My contribution is a policy piece that provides an affirmative vision for investment in rural America. (1/9) equitablegrowth.org/a-place-base...

As my two papers attest, I read "Stuck" as well as the Klein/Thompson book and the Dunkelman book, so I am well aware of Appelbaum's arguments -- I quote him, and specifically address what he is arguing.

Thanks for the reference!

But I don't think the consequent out-migration, due to lower housing costs in booming places, should be argued to on net HELP distressed places that lack jobs. & if there are high social costs of high non-employment, then place-based programs can make sense if cheap enough per job created.

I do not argue that out-migration should be "taxed" or otherwise restricted. Or subsidized for that matter. Of course, we should have more efficient housing supply policies everywhere, including in booming places, which will as a side-effect increase out-migration from distressed to booming places

I would agree that it is more difficult to turn around some distressed places than others. One size does not fit all .

"But I believe that in many distressed places, an appropratie strategy [can work] with sufficient investment resources....Many distressed [places], if...provided TVA-level resources of $380 per capita per year for 10 years...[could] dramaticallyl change the place's long-run... trajectory."

to failures of leadership [and] in other cases, even the most creative leader may be unable to come up with the right strategy for some particular distressed place.

[at a cost of $100K times the number of jobs]? No, I am not claiming that. Revitalizing a distressed [place] requires a sensible strategy based on the [place's] particular strengths and weaknesses....In some cases,...policymakes will be unable to come up w/ a sound strategy...[due sometimes]

But I add the following (p. 38): "I don't want to overclaim...Estimates support that...customized business services or neighborhood services can create higher employment rates at a cost of about $100K per extra job. Am I claiming that any distresed [place] can [reach any desired] job target...

I explicitly discuss this skepticism in the longer paper -- see p.. 19-23 and pp. 36-39. There, I mention some success stories -- TVA& ARC in the past, Grand Rapids (MI) and the Lehigh Valley more recently, the Empowerment Zone program, the Community Development Block Grant program.

If instead Abundance is just a "cost of living" slogan that says we need cheaper housing and less expensive public infrastructure, then perhaps distressed places don't fit in, even though there are great national gains to boosting overall employment rates via these policies.

Well, I'm hardly an expert on political slogans. It depends upon what abundance is about as a political slogan. If it is broadly about practical policies to increase the size of the U.S. economic pie, it should include what I call "place-based jobs policies" for distressed places.

The Abundance people frequently link to arguments that there are huge national returns to more people in booming tech centers -- and they do talk a lot about improving public investment. Realistically, any major pop increases in tech centers would have large public & private investment costs.

I have some discussion of this in my longer paper. Yes, SOME abundance policies are cheap. But OTHERS, including some of the most important, are not cheap, even though they may pass a benefit-cost test. For example, really jump-starting U.S. science will cost $$$.

Local labor markets have the fundamental feature that labor supply shocks are always simultaneously labor demand shocks, by more than people tend to think.

I am not arguing against SF implementing abundance policies. I am arguing that abundance policies should include what I call "place-based jobs policies" for distressed places -- policies to increase jobs or job opportunities in these distressed places.

Increasing out-migration from distressed places to booming places via cheaper housing in booming places would probably help the out-migrants somewhat. But the empirical evidence is against the notion that this would help those left behind in the distressed places.

Well, it is true that if housing was cheaper in booming places, more people would move out. However, it is also true that even today, many people DO move out of distressed places -- Flint has had lots of out-migration over the years, with no sign of this bringing prosperity back to Flint

I don't know anything about Trinity County, but when one looks at the realistic costs of boosting job growth sufficiently to alleviate job distress, it is difficult for a distressed area to afford the needed investments with their own resources. Part of the vicious cycle of decline.

Yes, I read the entire Stuck book, and am quite aware of this argument. However, I think the empirical evidence is that when people move out of distressed places, thus lowering labor supply by x%, this also lowers labor demand by x, and thus the employment rate is not higher.

There's lots to be said for the "abundance" movement but it says too little about distressed places.

Interesting take from @timbartik.bsky.social

@dkthomp.bsky.social @ezrakleinbot.bsky.social @yappelbaum.bsky.social @andreperryedu.bsky.social @brookings.edu @upjohninstitute.bsky.social

But the question is how you solve this problem, at scale. As I argue in the two papers, out-migration may help the out-migrants but does NOT help those left behind -- it does NOT rebalance labor supply versus demand in distressed places, as the out-migration reduces Ld as much as Ls.

I haven't read Tim's work yet, but I can guarantee they will be excellent

Thanks for the kind words!

Important paper on the need to include place-based strategies in "Abundance" Follow the thread by @timbartik.bsky.social

People have strong and valuable ties to places. Place-based jobs problems cannot be solved by “get out” strategies, but rather require place-based jobs policies. Acknowledging the value of improving distressed places is wise both economically and politically.

Second, the “means” of place-based jobs policies often requires overcoming local barriers to change – for example, an area may need to develop land for business or pivot to new industries.

Increasing employment rates in distressed places is an “Abundance” strategy for 2 reasons. First, increasing employment rates in distressed places increases the overall sustainable national employment rate by spreading jobs to places with extra labor supply.