There's a NY Times article about how there's a labor shortage in Iowa. I think that this one sentence explains the whole "shortage":
Companies want to be in Iowa because wages are lower than elsewhere in the nation or region, except South Dakota.
I was ready to move there until I read that sentence. If there were a genuine labor shortage in Iowa, wages would be higher than elsewhere in the nation.
Given the obvious reason for the "shortage," I am amazed at how the article meanders for two pages blaming lack of education, a bad image for the state, a low birthrate, too many old people, and not enough immigrants moving to Iowa.
Maybe there are too many Liberal Arts graduates trying to become screenwriters?
Posted by: Jim Beam | June 01, 2008 at 11:38 AM
There was one thing that caught my eye. People on this blog always complain how expensive a college education has become, forgetting that a good community or state college is a real option with tuition costs of around 8000 US a year.
Posted by: Gannon | June 01, 2008 at 11:44 AM
There was one thing that caught my eye. People on this blog always complain how expensive a college education has become, forgetting that a good community or state college is a real option with tuition costs of around 8000 US a year.
Posted by: Gannon | June 01, 2008 at 11:45 AM
The unemployment rate for Iowa is 3.5 ... nationally a rate like that usually means a lot of competition for workers. Another way of expressing the idea 'competition for workers' is as a shortage of workers.
"If there were a genuine labor shortage in Iowa, wages would be higher than elsewhere in the nation."
This is not correct. What is correct is wages would be rising. A shortage causes a rise in price, it does not cause the price of the object of interest to exceed all others. For instance, a shortage of rice of whatever magnitude, causes the price of rice to increase, it does not mean that rice suddenly becomes more valuable per pound than everything else in the supermarket.
Posted by: Vim | June 01, 2008 at 12:01 PM
... and also I think it would be obvious that the article is addressing why there is such a tight labor market in Iowa when the rest of the country is not experiencing the same. They are addressing what makes Iowa different from neighbouring Illinois (with unemployment rate of 5.3) ... which might include things like immigration ... I didn't get the impression the article was saying Iowa NEEDED immigrants. For instance this:
Iowa’s surplus arises from colliding trends: the exodus of young college graduates, a state economy that adds 2,000 jobs a month, low immigration and birth rates, and an image problem that makes it difficult to recruit workers from out of state.
seems like a fairly neutral statement to me.
Posted by: Vim | June 01, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Notice how the labor shortage is a problem to be fixed but whenever there's a surplus and people can't find jobs, we never hear about it. Wonder why... ;)
Posted by: SFG | June 01, 2008 at 02:00 PM
Good point SFG, but we're not supposed to point out class differences in US society, we're all one big middle class now, don't you know.
Having been to Des Moines many times for work, I have to say, it really wouldn't be a very bad place to live, especially the Western suburbs. Sure the winters are cold, but Chicago isn't Miami either.
Iowans are friendly, the crime rate is low, real estate is cheap, they have the same chain restaurants and stores you'd find anywhere else, the schools are excellent and what you'd save in your cost of living, you could easily pay for frequent trips to the bright lights, big city.
Posted by: beowulf | June 01, 2008 at 04:09 PM
Fun Question: Is there an interior city with high real estate costs? It seems that most of the high real estate costs are associated with coastal cities. People usually bring up fleeing blacks and other minorities, but cities like Charlotte, Atlanta, and Houston are in parts of the country with large native black populations, but real estate is rather affordable and well priced for the locals. In contrast, Seattle and the Bay Area have small (and easily escapable) black populations, but high housing costs.
Posted by: David Alexander | June 01, 2008 at 05:11 PM
"People usually bring up fleeing blacks and other minorities, but cities like Charlotte, Atlanta, and Houston are in parts of the country with large native black populations, but real estate is rather affordable and well priced for the locals."
i was raised in houston. the housing areas like river oaks (where the movie terms of endearment was based) or memorial are heavily white and a little asian and are fairly high priced. the areas that are cheaper are more heavily hispanic or poor white. a lot of the blacks (until katrina) were displaced by mexicans. they left or are relegated to places like the fourth ward. nobody wants to live there. i'd be surprised if charlotte didn't have similar stratification based on white flight. atlanta is a good question, but i suspect that it has a higher concentration of average to above average iq blacks that are fleeing places like california (with an inundation of mexicans). there is prolly some degree of white flight there, too.
comparing seattle or sf to any of these cities is misleading. there will always be more expensive residences in places with a very high concentration of above average iq white folks.
Posted by: anonymous 1 | June 01, 2008 at 05:24 PM
atlanta is a good question, but i suspect that it has a higher concentration of average to above average iq blacks that are fleeing places like california (with an inundation of mexicans)
I think I'm one of the few black people here in New York who hasn't considered moving there. It's much too warm and humid, and the city is lacking in mass transit, and it doesn't seem to friendly for people who seek out non-black friends. Unless I stay in the Northeast, I may consider Chicago, but the Bay Area is somehow attractive despite the possibility of earthquakes, and Canada is always second best.
Posted by: David Alexander | June 01, 2008 at 06:27 PM
People on this blog always complain how expensive a college education has become, forgetting that a good community or state college is a real option with tuition costs of around 8000 US a year.
But nobody wants to send their children to prole and minority ridden community or "directional state colleges" (aka commuter college). Everybody wants the typical "college" experience found at more expensive centres of learning, and people want the prestige of attending a selective school.
Posted by: David Alexander | June 01, 2008 at 08:30 PM
I noticed that they managed to put part of the blame on the new bogey man, bio-fuel.
Posted by: Turambar | June 02, 2008 at 01:07 AM
The reason for their low unemployment rate is simple: young people are leaving the state.
Everyone in Gen X and Y wants to live the cosmopolitan, sex in the city, friends, seinfeld, etc. lifestyle. If you live in Iowa, Chicago is pretty close, very urban, and relatively cheap.
The pace of gentrification in Chicago is pretty astounding. I feel like every five years it expands by half a mile outward from its old borders. These white people are coming from somewhere (and I see a lot of hawkeye flags outside of bars).
Posted by: Blues Brother | June 02, 2008 at 01:29 AM
Absolutely Blues Brother. Same thing in the East Coast with everyone moving to NYC and DC in their 20's. In the Midwest, Chicago is really the only place you can live the urban lifestyle, so young people from about 10 different states probably move there.
Posted by: Jack | June 02, 2008 at 01:41 AM
I thought this was pretty amusing:
But programs for the jobs in highest demand, including nurses and welders, have long waiting lists. “Employers come to us, asking, ‘Do you have any graduates coming up in this field?’ ” said Scott Ocken, dean of industry and technology. “A lot of times we have to say, ‘We do, but they’re already hired.’ ”
If I were the student I'd want the Dean to STFU and circulate my name to anyone who came calling so I could get the best offer for the market. Instead he apparently doesnt want to ace out his college's old standby employers and make them compete.
Posted by: Turambar | June 02, 2008 at 09:58 AM
How funny that a paper with such pretensions of intellectualism can be so stunningly ignorant of basic economics.
I'm still waiting for the NYT article on the gasoline surplus evidenced by the lack of people going to the pumps.
I think HS should resist reading the Times. Sure it's a rich source of absurdity, but it's not really a part of the American conversation.
-Mercy
Posted by: Mr. Mercy Vetsel | June 02, 2008 at 04:48 PM
the jobs or labor shortage is only in the agricultural sector. It is just large meat packers screaming for more cheap, illegal aliens they can exploit. Iowa's economy is not stellar. Less the agricultural industry, the Iowa business/industrial/service community does not have a labor shortage.
Posted by: disneyrecords | June 07, 2008 at 05:45 AM