Marketing and Business Recruitment, Wisconsin Style

A few observations:

• John Shiely and his brethren who fault those on the left who have negative knee jerk reactions to "anything business" are correct. There are a suspicious lot of lefties who start with the assumption that anything that is good for business is bad for everyone else. That must change.
• That said, Shiely has little that is positive to contribute to the discussion and the rest of his charges just make life more difficult for everyone trying to build a positive environment.
• For those of us on the left who do want to see a business and labor partnership in growing Wisconsin's economy, Shiely does not make the job any easier. Comparing Wisconsin wage rates to southern states does not cut it. We are not interested in lowering the bar, and there is plenty of proof that a well-paid workforce more than makes up for the additional labor costs in everything from productivity to having more successful kids in the public schools.
• Other than Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) there is really no rationale for using tax cuts and incentives to lure business. TIF has that vital "but for" test, and that standard should not be waived.
• Consistently, taxes are down the list in determining where a company locates. High on the list are the "quality factors": parks and recreation, safe neighborhoods, great schools, sound transportation systems (both public and private), a clean and healthy environment, cultural activities.
• Working on enhancing the presence of existing businesses is always a more productive goal than recruiting outsiders. If the outsiders find that the work done to develop the local business environment is sound, they will come.

When you have a runaway plant, a company determined to go to the site with the cheapest labor force, no matter what the consequences, it is difficult to compete since the values between the company and the community are so disparate. You have to change the values of the company, not the community standards.

For those new to this discussion, here is the background.

Since the explosive presentations at the Public Policy Forum Milwaukee Business Leaders Meet Their Worst Enemy - Themselves, we have the following, which is far from a complete list:

• Illinois thinks we are doing just fine: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Limousines: Ask the Flatlanders.
• Minnesota thinks we are doing just fine: Milwaukee has good company in having image problems.
• Some think Madison and Milwaukee's problems are the same: Blaska's Blog: Read Milwaukee, think Madison.
• And some just do not want to quit:  Somehow, we have to put an end to Milwaukee's zero-sum culture , or as Jim Rowen notes  Briggs & Stratton CEO Urges "Positive" Tone, Then Has A Counter-Productive Meltown Himself.
• And up until now we have not touched upon another dozen bloggers who entered the fray, including the penultimate battle  Our own worst enemy finding Steve Jagler, of the Small Business Times and a friend of Wisconsin Business, taking on a plethora of entertainers from right-wing talk radio.

Comments

[Michael Rosen]

You make several important points.

But I noticed that you did not post my original article which Mr. Sheily responded to.

I hope this was an omission and not because you think the original article was “a knee jerk reaction to anything business.”

The article made two key points about about how the state and its businesses can compete in the international economy neither of which Mr. Sheily responded to.

The first which you make in you blog is that competing based on low wages, a view reflected in CEO praise for the business climate in China and southern states, is a strategy that will ensure the loss of jobs in Wisconsin and a decline in our standard of living. America businesses that compete on low cost rather than quality, productivity and service are making a decision to cut wages or as you say lower the bar. Such an approach cannot work because US workers cannot and should not work for wage rates paid in China or Indonesia.

The second point is that Briggs and Stratton made a strategic decision to compete in high volume, low cost markets and to ignore the premium and green (high value added) markets that its foreign competitors were investing in. Briggs even sued California in an effort to stop it from establishing more rigorous environmental standards on small engines. By contrast, Japanese small engine producers embraced the change. The decision to focus on high volume low cost production forced Briggs to adopt an aggressive anti-union strategy that included cutting wages, demanding concessions and eventually exporting over 10,000 jobs.

These are important issues that needed to be addressed by those concerned about Wisconsin’s economic development and people.