فیلم آینده کار، آینده برنامه ریزی | همایش سیاست و اعتراضات ۲۰۱۷

Title:The Future of Work, the Future of Planning | 2017 Policy and Advocacy Conference

رایان اونت، سردبیر ارشد و ستون‌نویس اقتصاد اکونومیست و نویسنده ثروت انسان‌ها، شرکت‌کنندگان در کنفرانس سیاست و حمایت ۲۰۱۷ را به چالش می‌کشد تا آینده کار در آمریکا را در نظر بگیرند. تغییر ماهیت کار چگونه بر جوامع و برنامه ریزی تأثیر می گذارد؟ روندهای کلیدی – از اتوماسیون گرفته تا اقتصاد گیگ – برای سیاست گذاری و برنامه ریزی عمومی نشان دهنده چیست؟ درباره چگونگی تأثیر فناوری بر شهرها در آینده بیشتر بدانید: https://www.planning.org/resources/av/

درباره کنفرانس سیاست و حمایت APA بیشتر بدانید: https://www.planning.org/policy/conference/ (تگ‌ها به ترجمه کار کردن

قسمتی از متن فیلم: Welcome to today’s policy and advocacy conference luncheon I am Carol Rea immediate past president of the American Planning Association and it’s my privilege to introduce our luncheon speaker I am delighted to welcome Ryan Avent mr. Avent is a senior editor and economics colonists on topics related to

Planning and communities he is also the author of the recent book The Wealth of humans previously he wrote another title with planning implications the gated city in the wealth of humans he explores the changing nature of who was working and how we work he looks at the economic and technological forces changing our

Work around the globe and how these trends are driving our politics and shaping our communities planners are always analyzing today to develop local visions for the future how we work is of course an important part of how we plan for the future and how we plan for things like housing and

Infrastructure can play a big role in managing changes in how we work and how we live many of us are already working on plans that incorporate new levels of automation and new patterns of development driven by these changes so I know you were eager to hear his insights

Perhaps you’ll also let us know if planner bots are coming to take our jobs so please join me in welcoming Ryan Ava [Applause] thank you very much I think the Bob’s eventually are coming for all of our jobs there’s I think there was a recent piece of news about

The Washington Post which said that last year roughly 800 of their stories were written by an algorithm so for as if those of us in in the journalism world didn’t have enough trouble so that we got to deal with with the robots as well thank you all very much for for having

Me here it’s very good to be with you today and welcome to Washington to the the future home of Amazon’s hq2 as we like to say around here I don’t know if our odds are better worse than in other places but it does seem like a bit of an advantage that

Jeff Bezos just bought a house here and a newspaper and it seems like he likes being here so we’ll see how that goes has there been much discussion of the Amazon contest here today I imagine that stirred up a little bit of it did not matter okay um you know I think actually

For all of the things that are going on right now for those of us who have long had an interest and in a passion really for four cities and how they work in the role they play in the economy and in our society that this actually is a pretty

Important and in some ways exciting time that there’s renewed attention on on the roles that cities play on the things that we can do to help them thrive and to to increase accessibility to our thriving places and to try to help places that are not thriving and I’m

Hopeful that you know out of the difficulties we’ve been experiencing really over the past decade that you know this discussion will pick up some momentum and that we will it will find new ways to address a lot of our challenges um and I don’t I don’t want

To talk too much today about about politics but I’m going to set out kind of a I guess what I say is a sweeping discussion of what I think is going on with the economy what the implications are for for cities and for planners and I think before doing that it’s it is

Worth noting the context of you know of this discussion and that context I think is as you look around the world is one in which people are frustrated they are disappointed in many cases with how things have gone for them in their families the last few years or

Last few decades there’s a confusion as to why these changes are occurring and there’s a there’s a lot of bitter disappointment and these disappointments at times manifest themselves in a willingness to to vote for for leaders or for parties that we would have thought perhaps our outside the usual

Political mainstream to embrace policy ideas or ideologies that we might have thought we had relegated permanently to to being outside the mainstream and I think it’s tempting often to write this off as kind of a hangover from the financial crisis and something that’s going to fade out as we continue that

Recovery but I think it would be unwise to come to that conclusion I think you know the seeds for a lot of these movements were were a present and apparent before the financial crisis they persisted for for quite a long time after the financial crisis and I think

It’s you know doesn’t take much imagination to say that while it seems now like the economy’s a lot of Everett places are improving and healing that things wouldn’t have to go very wrong in the near future for the politics to become much worse and for for the the

Strains that have been placed on institutions by a lot of economic changes to to to find their way into some really damaging damaging policies I could do a lot of harm and so you know as we look around and we see cities and households who have diminished economic

Expectations I know for themselves and their children as we see the problem of rising inequality both across the distribution of households but also between places and as we see the way that those gulfs between the haves and have-nots contribute to feelings of isolation polarization of the citizenry

I think it’s you know we have to keep that in mind in the stakes whenever we’re talking about the policies that we’re interested in and that’s what one thing I want to talk to you all today is about how high the stakes are for the work that you do so what exactly is

Behind all of these kind of worrying trends that we’ve seen over the last few years well I you know I think the way I tend to sum up what we’ve been experiencing is I guess it’s somewhat melodramatic but it’s the it’s what I call the global eclipse of labor and

This shows up in in lots of different statistical series and lots of different kind of social outcomes but I’m just gonna highlight a few here I guess first and most importantly since the 1970s economic growth has slowed down pretty significantly across most of the industrialized world and it’s not just

GDP growth that slowed productivity growth has also slowed and productivity growth is really important that’s the way we figure out how to do more with less it’s how we raise our standard of living over time and so the fact that there’s been a sustained slowdown but

For a few years in the late 1990s is a serious problem and this is not just about demographics it is true that you know aging is part of this slower growth story but it also seems that we’re just not doing as good a job coming up with good ideas translating those good ideas

Into new businesses and new technologies new way of doing things that raise people’s standards of living as growth has slowed we’ve also see stagnant seen stagnation in people’s incomes and so for some groups particularly men or for those without a college education there’s really been a generation in

Which wages haven’t gone up by much at all but for nearly all of us since 2000 wages have been have been pretty stagnant we just got a new data point from where the census recently that showed that the median the household income for the median household in America adjusted for living costs just

Reached an all-time high overcame the previous peak which was reached in 1999 and it’s good that we got over that hump finally it’s good that that happened but it basically means that for almost two decades there’s been almost no progress for the typical American and so it’s not

Hard to understand why people might be a little upset about about how things are playing out and that’s the typical American that we’re talking about things are different if you look toward the top of the income spectrum you know from the 1980s the top 20% has done very well

While the bottom 80% or so has done poorly but really since the 2000s the gains from growth have fallen almost exclusively on kind of the top one percent and that top 1% suffered a bit during the Great Recession as asset prices tumbled as we’ve seen asset prices have

Recovered quite well and so the you know the story of in terms of the distribution has been one in which the 1% are ever better at capturing the gains from growth and then another thing and this is what I’m showing you here in the chart is what we’ve seen across

Countries is a decline in the share of income that’s produced each year that goes to workers in the form of wages and salaries as opposed to people who own capital or people who own property or land and this is true across rich economies in poor it’s true across manufacturing based economies and

Service based economies and it’s a it’s a really dramatic of worrying trend and I think what all these things reflect is the world in which the economy is not functioning the way we would hope that it would and the brunt of that pain is being borne by by workers and primarily

By workers who are outside of the top 1% and this is kind of the the gloomy picture I know I’m starting off on kind of a dismal note here but this is where we are and and where I think we can expect to stay for a while and I’ll tell you why

Now why what do we think is causing all these different different trends well I don’t want to say that I’ve got this one single answer for what’s going on and there been a lot of changes that have occurred over the last three or four decades it’s certainly the case tax

Regimes have changed regulatory regimes have changed to make things more favourable in some senses for for the very rich it’s also the case that unions have become less powerful that’s certainly a factor but you know if you look across the world and how many places are showing these sorts of trends

And all these super places have different approaches to taxes and regulation and whatnot you have to sort of conclude that there is a bigger structural transformation going on in the economy and I sort of described this structural transformation as a digital revolution I didn’t come up with that

Obviously but that’s what I have to sort of use as my catch-all term for what we’re going through and in my view this digital revolution is going to turn out to be as important as transformative and disruptive and ultimately as beneficial as the Industrial Revolution was I think

It’s that kind of epoch that we’re talking about and we’re just in the first few decades of it now what do I mean by the digital revolution well it sort of began in the 70s and 80s with automation advanced manufacturing techniques came into a lot of plants you

Saw the spread of computing across firms and into households between dramatic improvements and communication technologies and the ability to gather and analyze data all which is very important and a knock-on effect from improving communications technology and data technology was a change in the way firms did business so that they spread their

Production across global supply chains all over the world and that in turn has led over the last 15 to 20 years to an era that we casually refer to as hyper globalization of rapid global integration which is also meant kind of the financialization of the global economy it’s brought more than a billion

Workers in low-wage countries like China India into the global labor force which has been very good for those places which has been a disruptive thing for industrialised countries to handle and now I think we’re seeing that you know continued progress in this digital revolution and even in some cases

Intensification of this progress thanks to the emergence of really powerful machine learning artificial intelligence techniques and this is the stuff that’s going to blow our minds over the next 10 to 20 years we’re gonna we have software programs that much more quickly than we had anticipated are learning to do

Complex tasks complex cognitive tasks like drive cars and trucks something that’s going to be very much on the menu I’m sure of future conferences here but also learn to anticipate our needs before we even know that we have them and learn to understand human speech in some cases to carry on basic

Conversations with with individuals and so you know if you think about that you can begin to see all the different industries in which these changes are going to be having a huge effect and all the different occupations that are going to be facing some pretty serious challenges and you know either because

They’re being replaced by robots or having their responsibilities and it fundamentally change by what these new new things can do and so I think that this is where we are and this is a big reason why I don’t think the hardships of the last 10 to 20 years are about to

Suddenly disappear sadly now I I spend a lot of time thinking about the Industrial Revolution I’m sure that’s true of all of you as well I studied economic history as a graduate student and so I try to inject a little bit some subject you all to a little bit

Of economic history but when we think about the initial revolution I think you know we tend to think this was this was a process that really made the world much much better all you kind of go in on one side and the population is mostly illiterate

I don’t live very long most people kind of work in agriculture working at subsistence levels things are not all that great and then you come out the other side and we have cars and we have televisions and we have microwaves life expectancy is much longer incomes are

Much higher and so you know I think the thought that a lot of us have is that when you have a revolution like this it makes everyone much much better off and everyone feels good and it’s it’s it’s you know your your grandparents fight see that the world changes during their

Lifetime in positive ways and I think you know that’s true that’s that is what happened but the lessons of economic history remind us that it took a really long time and a lot of bad stuff happened along the way and so for the first hundred years or so of the British

Industrial Revolution wages didn’t really go up at all for workers even if they started even after they started to go up inequality remains quite high and a side effect of stagnant wages and rising inequality was the growth of radical ideological movements which in turn led to revolutions and Wars and

Things like that and I so I’m not suggesting this is what we’re in for but I do think it’s it’s worth we’re calling that big technological revolutions while they ultimately do tremendous good create a lot of difficulties that we you know as policy makers or as thinkers

Have to grapple with and try to overcome and certainly you see that when you look at the digital revolution and I would just point to a few big effects that I think is having on on the way our economy works the first I would say is that there we are increasingly in the

Midst of an abundance of labor and an abundance sounds like a good thing it’s sounds like then we want to have but if you think about what happens when there’s an abundance of wheat or oil the price of wheat and oil goes down quite a

Lot so if you were the thing that is in abundance and we are the thing that is in abundance then that’s not necessarily a good thing and it’s it’s not surprising necessarily that incomes wouldn’t have grown by very much and this abundance has multiple sources some

Of it comes from the fact that really skilled workers can use technology to do work that previously required many more less skilled workers some of it has to do with globalization and the increasing ability to take advantage of you know hundreds of millions of laborers and other countries and that’s adding to the

Abundance of labor and then of course there’s automation automation comes in adds to the effective labor that a company can use it displaces people who think we have to go out and look for new jobs and so you have all these different sources of available workers this

Abundance and the kind of upshot of all of that is that companies when faced with workers who are asking for raises have lots and lots of tools at their disposal to say no we don’t we don’t really feel any pressure to give you a raise and so that that’s one of the big

Stories I think of the digital revolution is this abundance of labor I’m a second part of it I think is that when wages aren’t growing as they haven’t been coops sorry all sorts of other things about the economy stop working or don’t work the way we would

Want them to so I’ll give you an example consumer spending we all know is is kind of the thing that powers growth in the American economy we rely on people to to buy more and more and more stuff now if wages aren’t growing to buy more and

More and more stuff you have to borrow and so there’s pressure on governments to ease lending standards make it easier for people to borrow now you keep having these recurrent accumulations of debt that lead to crises and or other dysfunction and and the economy generally seems like it’s not working in

The right way or to give you another example firms when they’re not you know when they have a queue of workers waiting to work for very low pay feel much less pressure to invest in the workers they’ve already got they feel less pressure to invest in training to

Improve the productivity in the skill set of the workers they’ve got they feel less pressure to invest in new technology to improve the productivity of the workers they’ve got why bother when they can throw a bunch of minimum-wage workers at the problem and so we have less investment we have a

Bigger problem of indebtedness and we have a we have an economy that just seems like something is broken with it and then the third big effect I think is that there are big economic benefits that are being generated by this digital revolution but they are incredibly concentrated and so and I think maybe

Richard Ford has talked about this on this morning but you have this phenomenon of superstar workers professional supers our firm superstar cities and you have in a digital economy you know if you come up with a big new idea you can then sell that idea all over the world you can sell your

Software all over the world and you sell your pop song all over the world you can sell your fund management skills all over the world because it’s a digital world and what that means is that the people who are at the top of their profession and these kinds of industries

Are suddenly able to serve many more clients to make much more money and and generally to reap at outsize share of the gains from growth and so this is what we were observing we’re seeing the gains from growth go to a smaller set of individuals to a smaller set of

Companies and consequently to a smaller set of places we have superstar cities and we have the rest and and in perhaps you can see where I’m going to go with this now so the you know when we look at historical economic revolutions it’s always clear that there is a geographic

Footprint that those revolutions have there are big Geographic effects big regional effects that those transformations have and and the current one is no exception they have been big geographic effects they’re going to continue and it’s important to understand them and I it’s um so if you look at how regions within

Rich countries grew in the period before the 1980s we see a pattern of growth that was very different from what we see now so from about the 1880s to the 1980s poor American States grew faster than rich American States it wasn’t always by fast enough so that over the course of

That century they completely caught up but there was nonetheless this process of convergence and that wasn’t just an American thing poor Japanese prefecture has caught up to rich Japanese prefectures poor European rigid regions grew faster than rich European regions and this was the way things were worked and we kind of

Thought that was just how it was up until about the 1980s and from the 1980s something changed and this process of ketchup slowed down and from the 2000s it stopped completely so across regions you just no longer had convergence between rich and poor and then if you look at the metropolitan

Level you often had outright divergence so you had places that in the 1980s had a very high share of college graduates in their population over the next thirty years the share of college graduates went up in places that began that period with very low level of college graduates

In their population so all that level tend to either stagnate or decline you saw cities that began this period with high productivity levels have the gap in their productivity grow over that time and this shows up in all sorts of different ways if you look at venture capital investment venture capital

Investment has become more concentrated in a smaller group of really successful cities employment in high school categories and technical scientific and engineering categories has become more concentrated over the last thirty years and and this is really quite a significant concern that we have and I’ll tell you why it’s concerned you

Might think you know this is just how it goes right if we look back at the Industrial Revolution some place some cities were well positioned to take advantage of new industry they grew enormously and you know we’re better for it and and there’s an element of truth

To that certainly but what we aren’t seeing as we look at the places that are well positioned to benefit from digital technology and that are thriving as a response as a result what we aren’t seeing in those places is very much population growth and I’m not telling

You guys anything you don’t already know I realized that but if you look for instance at the population of San Francisco over the last thirty years San Francisco metropolitan area it’s grown by about a third now that’s a lot that’s a lot I’m sure to people living in San

Francisco that felt like a really big deal but if you look back at what happened in Manchester between 1811 and 1841 the population roughly doubled over that frame population of shanghai over the last 30 years has roughly doubled if you look at the population of chicago from

۱۸۶۰ to 1890 it grew tenfold tenfold and that was by no means an unrepresentative experience you had lots of industrial cities that just enjoyed explosive growth as people realized this is where the new technologies are this is where the new jobs are this is where the new opportunities are and consequently moved

To them to take advantage of them and that ended up being a really good thing it was a good thing for the national economy it’s a good thing for the national economy when people move in this way these these thriving places are places where new ideas are being

Generated where new techniques are being perfected and to learn them you often have to be in the room you often have to be there where the techniques are being created and so people when they move from poor places to richer places they tend to become more productive they tend

To have their income go up you have to be there to be able to learn these things or to sell goods and services to the people who are developing these things and so estimates of sort of the damage we’ve done to ourselves and not having as much population growth in our

Successful places are just astounding and there’s a recent study which you may be familiar with that said that over the last 50 years had we done a better job moving people into our most successful places we would then GDP would have been 13 percent higher than it currently is

Now in an economy like the United States which is 18 trillion dollar economy that’s a lot that’s trillions of dollars that households don’t have to spend on themselves that we as a society you don’t have to spend on infrastructure or healthcare or pensions or efforts to fight climate change those are resources

That are just just lost and so this is a you know a tremendous opportunity that we’re failing failing to seize here so then we have to ask ourselves why why exactly aren’t people moving to to these thriving places and again I’m gonna be telling you things that you I’m sure

Already know but you know it’s not the case that that there again but there’s one single explanation for everything there’s not one explanation for why population in San Francisco or New York or Boston or Washington is it grow explosively some of it has to do with the fact that Americans just moved less

Than they used to mobility has been falling for a while now and that has to do with demographic changes with the rise of 200 households some of it is due to government policy which discourages moves so you have a rise in occupational licensing which means that you know you

Can if you are a nurse or a dentist or a doctor or hairdresser move from one state to another to practice but it’s a it’s more costing and annoying that it used to be have to be recertified not just any little burden discourages some moves some of it is about government

Benefit policies if you are a teacher who splits time between two different school systems you can on average expect to earn a pension that is one-half that of a teacher who stays in the same school system for their entire time because of the way we tend to structure

Our public pensions and then they’re also they’re also massive subsidies for home ownership which are there in part to try to get people to stay put so that they and become invested in their community but what has ended up happening is that the sentiment I’m sorry the incentive that people have to

Stay put is keeping them rooted in places that are disconnected from a lot of these new opportunities and disconnected from the people who are seizing all these opportunities and there is a gulf there a social gulf but i think that when we think about what’s really keeping people out of our most

Successful few metropolitan areas what we’re really talking about is is high housing costs and about the supply constraints that lead to those those high housing costs and so if you you know if you look at at Houston someone who’s earning the median income for the United States versus a little bit below

Sixty thousand dollars a year can’t afford to buy the median home in Houston typical American bike can buy a home there the median home in Washington I actually didn’t didn’t believe this I would have thought it would been much worse but in Washington the salary you

Need to buy the median home is $80,000 keep in mind this is the median which means that half of all sales are going to be at prices or you’re going to need a salary above that and those homes are gonna be the ones that didn’t have better access to transport and good

Schools and jobs and all that so we’re just talking about the median home but the figure is 80,000 dollars in Washington in New York it’s 100,000 dollars and in San Francisco it’s a hundred and sixty thousand dollars or more than three times the median household income in the United States to

Buy the median home in San Francisco and that to me is just this is the world that we’ve this is the country that we’ve built for ourselves right now it is one in which the most exciting opportunities are in a place that is entirely out of reach to the typical

American and and this I think it would be correct to identify it as a crisis as a serious crisis now why is it that prices are so much higher I I think that you know again there are multiple factors at work San Francisco is not the same as Houston

And so when you pay for housing in San Francisco you’re paying for a different set of amenities and different kinds of jobs and you would if you’re paying for a house in Houston and so no matter what there’s gonna be a difference in price there so that’s part of it but I think

Really we have to talk about housing supply issues and again not all of that is is policy related the bay area is the bay area it has its geographical constraints it has area set aside it can’t be developed to preserve nature and I think that’s a fantastic thing but

That’s and those aren’t really the constraints that that I think are binding the situation you only have to drive down the peninsula to see what the problem is and the problem is that huge amounts of the most valuable real estate in the country are covered with single-family homes and those single

Family homes are occupied by people who are willing to fight to the death just about to prevent anything other than single-family homes from being built anywhere close by and you know you could we could double the density of the peninsula still have an area that was you know nothing like Manhattan but what

We would have but still feel very suburban but we would have added significantly to housing stock in the area but we’re not able to do that and I think the reason we’re not able to do that as you all I’m sure some of you at least would agree it has to do with

Constraints in the law its constraints in the zoning code other regulatory restrictions and general Nimba opposition to development and I think the thing that I would try to emphasize here again is that you know these people while they almost certainly feel that they’re they’re not doing much harm or

Indeed are doing good for their community are costing the economy trillions of dollars and are helping nurture these social divisions I think underlie a lot of difficulties we face as a country so then we should need to talk about what we can do about it and that that is where the that is

Where things get difficult and I wish this section of the talk were longer but unfortunately I I’m relying on all you to come up with the really hard decisions but I do have a few thoughts a few thoughts that I think might be a productive way just to just discard to

Begin a discussion excuse me so I think certainly one thing to note is that education is going to help that making people aware the nature of the problem and the consequences of the problem is an important first step and that’s something that I’ve certainly tried to

Do is say I mean you guys may not realize that this is going on but it’s having these consequences we really need to talk about it and I think you know I think that conversation is beginning to resonate more and more with people it hasn’t yet translated into the kind of

You know development or the kind of redesign of cities that we might have hoped to follow from that so I think that’s that’s that’s an initial step but it’s by no means a sufficient step um I think that by grappling with the sort of political dynamics the local political

Dynamics that lead there that encourage down zoning or make it easy to fight new construction we can come up with better ways to do to do City Planning and you know the nature of the problem is it’s not very complicated you have individuals individuals in close proximity to new developments have a

Strong incentive to fight them you know they’re gonna have to deal with all the the problems associated with construction they’re gonna be the ones who have to deal with congestion in their public spaces from parks and roads and schools and they’re the ones who have been living in this place and

Perhaps are not interested in seeing others come in perhaps of different socioeconomic background and it limiting develop is one development is one very effective and still acceptable way to kind of filter out who you want and don’t want in your community and so you have a group of people that has an

Incredibly strong incentive to fight new development and on new development also generates lots of benefits but those benefits are spread very diffusely you know I living here in Arlington would receive some small benefit from increased construction in San Francisco but it’s not enough sadly and maybe it

Should be but it’s not enough to get me to get on a plane every time there’s a you know a zoning board fight over a home in Palo Alto that you know they wants to add a granny flat or whatever so so you have this asymmetry of

Incentives and what it means is that systematically it’s much easier to fight development than it is to accept it and you know we don’t want to we don’t want to silence voices that are opposed to development they don’t have very real concerns but what we can do is kind of

Change the way that we that we make policy so that more voices are heard so that they’re there’s a rebalancing of the power interests and I’ll give you an example we these are not ideas by the way that I’ve come up with individually these are ideas I’ve borrowed from from

Other scholars who’ve been working in the area david Schleicher and others and so I I don’t want to take credit for them but zoning budget is I think of really a very promising way to approach this topic and so what you do is and forgive me if I’m telling you something

You already know but what you do is every few years you sit down you decide as a city or even better as a metropolitan area how much housing do we need to create to meet the needs of our citizens and the needs of our economy you know what how

Much housing supply growth should there be and you set that number that’s your bet your budget and then you have a negotiation from all the different parts cause you have to allocate that budget across different parts of the of the region and and if there are places within the region that really are

Adamant that they can’t that they don’t want or can’t use anymore development then they’re free to bargain to lower their their allowance but that has to be offset somewhere else by an increasing allowance and so you use this you not you know everyone has the chance to express their preferences but what

You’re making sure is that people in in sort of having their voice heard and having their preferences satisfied aren’t hurting the economy of the region as a whole so I think this kind of thing is very promising another option I think it would be to sort of draw a lesson

From the economics and the politics of international so when you’re trying to negotiate a trade deal you often include Trade Adjustment Assistance Trade Adjustment Assistance is in there so that if people are negatively affected by trade liberalization they are then given some money to help them handle typically not

Enough but some to help them make the adjustment to this new to this new trade trading environment and if we do that in part because it seems like the right thing to do that you know these people didn’t you know having their lives up

Ended and we owe it to them to help them out but we’re off we also do it because it makes the political debate about trade deals much more simple it kind of reduces the incentive to fight these things tooth and nail because they know if they lose out they’re not going to be

Left completely high and dry and we could take that lesson and we could apply it to a metropolitan context and we could say you know what we as we’re making a priority to develop portions of the city we need to accommodate more people so they can have access to your

Local jobs we recognize that there is going to be disruption associated with that but what we know is that this new development is going to and we anticipate is going to increase our tax base increase our property tax base and and so what we’re going to do is take

Some of that projected rise in revenue and use it to abate the tax taxes paid by others in the immediate area it sort of feels like a bribe but I think the right way to think about it is as compensation for your you know we recognize that you’re suffering

Something that you didn’t ask for and this is us compensating you for it and therefore the people in proximity to new developments have less of an incentive to sort of go to the mat to fight to fight you know up zonings or new developments that are proposed and then

There’s a third possibility which actually I think has been you know this sort of potential here has been highlighted by Amazon’s decision actually and I think what we’ve seen has been really fascinating for me I imagine for you as well what we’ve seen since Amazon made this decision to build a new

HQ somewhere city leaders feel suddenly feeling this urgency to kind of reflect on the decisions they’ve made about infrastructure investment about investment in their local educational institutions and in public goods and other amenities and saying you know goodness we’ve we’ve really kind of fallen behind in providing these

Things for our citizens now we have an opportunity to to rally together and do this and we want to do it because landing Amazon is something that’s gonna benefit everyone and I think that’s really instructive because whenever you’re doing these big investment programs or they’re gonna be winners as

Well as losers but when you can dangle a carrot like Amazon there in front of the potential losers and say look even if you’re not going to win as much as others you’re still gonna be maybe better off because this is a big deal then that changes the dynamics of that

Policy debate in that area and that helps build momentum to invest in transit to invest in schools to invest in community amenities and now the thing we ought to note is that you don’t have to wait for Amazon to do that or another company to say to decide it wants to

Build another HQ there aren’t a lot of Amazon’s out there and Amazon’s probably not going to build HQs in every every major city in America or minor city in America but we can apply those same lessons to federal government policy and if we’re you know if we’re interested in

Sort of changing the way local leaders that think about planning or in supporting people who are really trying to push for investments that are badly needed in this country well then we could develop a program where we say we’re going to increase the potential funding for infrastructure that’s

Available and we’re going to allocate it based on you know the cities that are best able to and to come up with plans that provide for the kind of growth that we think this country needs to improve access to to good jobs to address inequality and doesn’t just have to be

Infrastructure funding either we could have you know we have lots of government sponsored or government directed research research institutes around the country those in turn could be could be offered to cities that that you know promised to sort of build a political consensus in providing the things that

Are going to allow them to thrive and so I think that that too is is something to look at but I guess I would you know close by by offering one third potential way forward and I know that the the people in this room work very hard what

You do you care a lot about trying to improve the way we plan and grow our cities and and care quite a lot about it but I think it’s important always to remember and I’m sure you do and don’t a patronage you but I it’s important to

Realize that all these debates happen in the context of the built environment we already have so if we say to people in San Francisco you know Houston builds 50,000 homes each year and that’s why their houses are so are so cheap people in San Francisco will say I know and we

Don’t we don’t want to look anything like Houston and Houston’s a lovely City by the way but but it’s understandable why people in San Francisco might not want to have that model might not want to have sprawl it’d be a feature of their landscape might not want to build

Lots of homes in a floodplain and so on and so it’s up to up to all of us I think to offer them something better to say that you know what it is possible to have design homes neighborhoods and of cities that is attractive that is functional design that is activated by

Density which is enlivened by density and not overburdened by density design that presents to people a positive vision of how cities can work and function and and I you know I again I know that this is something that you guys carry with you all the time but

What I would want to stress here is is that the stakes are high however high you think the stakes are answering these critical questions how do we create diverse communities with better access to more jobs and how do we do it in a way that we can get buy-in from existing

Residents who stand to lose from development there’s there’s an incredible sense of urgency about it and we all need to to keep that at the forefront of our minds as we as we think about what we’re going to try to change about policy and about the way we do our

Jobs in the future so I think at this point that’s the end of my remarks and we have a little bit of time for Q&A if we’d like to do that [Applause] hey I’m Richard Dunn what an opportunity thank you my question is about I don’t

Know 40 50 years ago I went to college and they had a book by Paul Seamus and I don’t know if anybody else remembers him but he was an economist something I jumped in my head but I think he sort of had a philosophy that as the economy

Moves forward of course that was then this is now we all know that things got better on average for everybody I’m just wondering maybe I think I have two questions first question is well did you find any of the numbers that you presented before that would have been

Perhaps counter to what you’re proposing that is fine answer is actually better and a couple things come to my mind but I’m not a statistician and I haven’t written books like you have one of them would be seems like right now at least in the USA and I think generally around

The world a higher percentage of people are getting jobs now I think almost all of us probably agree there is the difference between the wealthy and the poor the average and that spreads getting bigger but still more people are getting jobs and some families as we say

Of to or maybe in a family has two adults and maybe two or three jobs even maybe so that’s but but still that helps that family I would guess as I’m trying to build a little case here like a little bit of a Biddle case maybe to see if you

Can refute me easily or not embarrass me too bad the second thing would be you know some things like Ivan my pocket of phone and pay way too much for it but there are Indians living in the reservations in western Panama that have a phone that would probably do about 50%

Of what my phone will do when they have electricity and is charged that gives some kind of equality there that might not actually be and that person there is earning probably less than $400 a year that’s just a couple things and then many of us who are older like me have

Had children who go to college and when they finished college I would they came home for a visit and stayed like two years maybe you know something like that but then eventually they went to Portland Oregon or San Diego you know and I was in Chicago whatever so there

Is still some aspects of mobility and some of that mobility is even much much faster I flew up here last night and cut into a hotel and I’m tired different people along the way one person was giving yoga classes in Atlanta I think for a week and then went back to

Wherever they were going another person well they have two homes ones near Baltimore and the other was in somewhere in out of Alabama mm-hmm and so and they both have jobs and I couldn’t even keep track with what she was telling me so I’m just saying we have awful lot of mobility

I think airlines are moving people so much faster than they did okay I’m talking too much no I think there’s a lot of a lot of mobility and I think there are some evidences that the economy is helping many people and it’s also like dental insurance if you’ve got it it’s great

You know well very good questions if I forget one I’ll come back to you to remind me so let’s see yeah I think so I guess I’ll start with your second point which is that it is true that there are qualitative improvements in the things we have available to us then aren’t

Always reflected in GDP so you know we can binge-watch all sorts of television programs now in a way that we couldn’t in the past that’s not going to show up as a higher income for us but it is something that we’re glad to have and there are those

Things out there and so it probably wouldn’t be accurate to say that there has been no improvement in the standard of living at the same time it remains the case that lots of important things like housing and health care and and all sorts of other stuff still cost money

And if it is a it becomes a problem when when actual incomes are not not going up by very much and I think it’s one reason we really know it’s a problem is that we aren’t just seeing rising inequality but an increase in generational immobility so not geographically mobility but

People who are born into the lower rungs of the income ladder are not having as an easy time moving up to the upper rungs of the income ladder and that suggests that something machinery here is broken that needs to be looked at your you are absolutely right that

Employment is is growing it’s at an all-time high in Germany and Britain the unemployment rate here is quite low as well I I don’t think that I don’t really see that as a refutation of of what I’m saying for a few reasons I think one is

That a lot of these jobs are not very good jobs you know – think back sort of about the the guy running the warehouse who’s making a decision whether automate choice that would raise productivity and potentially you know improve efficiency or to continue employing lots of people

Because he has the pick of minimum-wage workers available to him it would be better if we automated that warehouse and then liberated those workers to go and invest in training and get a better job somewhere else I think growth in really tenuous low-wage jobs is better than no growth

In jobs but it’s worth worse than no improvement in both the quantity and the quality of jobs and mobility um well it is true that Americans remain more mobile than Europeans so we you know by comparison to people in other places we are a fairly mobile country but it’s

Also the case that mobility has fallen over time and the you know mobility rates are highest across the age spectrum for the young youngest people that’s when people move the most but that’s also where some of the sharpest declines in mobility have occurred and that’s really worrying because it’s

Those initial moves when you’re jumping from job to job and place to place learning new skills figuring out what you’d like to do and where you want to do it that you really make a lot of big income gains and learn a lot about yourself and all sorts of things so I

Think it’s I don’t want to say that that everything is completely awful and no one’s moving anywhere but it does seem like the opportunities we have now are meaningfully worse than they were even when I was graduating from college which was like 17 years ago

So my question may be a simple one it concerns population growth Richard Florida this morning described a lifetime that arcs about 60 years and in that in that time frame we saw about 100 million people come into this country natural native birth and immigration in the next thirty years we’re going to see

That kind of population growth and we’ve been taught that the baby boom and other things made a big difference during that time frame so when I read Robert Jordan Robert Gordon’s book about you’ll have to help me with the title but you know but the limits to growth after 1970 in

Terms of economic growth and the GDP I wonder where does the population growth factor into that big question but I hope you can help help me know it is a big question and even though population growth is slowing we do anticipate that the population you guys will get quite a lot

Larger between now and 2050 it’s supposed to rise to like 450 million or something I think you know part of the way you interpret that depends a little bit on what story you buy about the future if you subscribe to Robert Gordon’s ideas and Robert Gordon is an

Economist at Northwestern I guess you may have seen I’ve heard Richard Ford to talk about it but his view is essentially that we’ve kind of run out of big ideas run out of new technologies and we’re just never gonna grow anything like we did in the past and then

Population growth is not something to be look forward to because it means that we’re going to have fewer and fewer resources to share out across the people that we have here I tend to think he’s wrong I think that’s that’s not actually the case and really that the potential

For quite impressive growth is there and I think it’s really hard to deny that if you look at kind of the amazing technological developments that we’re seeing now the question is how do we that was two questions really how do we make sure that technologies go from the

Drawing board to actually out there in the world where they’re improving lives and then second how do we make sure that population growth that the Peete new people that were you know they’re being born or they’re coming to the country are prepared and our have the opportunity to to take full

Advantage of those new technologies and to enjoy high incomes as a result and I think these are all policy questions it’s just a simple question of whether we get it right or not and I think we loo have the capacity to get it right and you know certainly my

Hope is that that we will and I think a huge component of that is making sure that in the places where the you know where these new technologies are being developed where we’re learning to apply them where we’re figuring out what we can do usefully with them that we’re

Able to we’re able to accept a lot of population growth and have a lot of people be exposed to those discussions to learn those skills and techniques and to participate in those local economies you know I think that really is a critical critical component of making

Sure that we were able to take advantage of population growth so I’m an optimist in that sense I mean I didn’t seem very optimistic in my talk today but I am an optimist and I’m just curious about the relevance of sort of private investment and access to capital in this you know

Sort of anecdotally what it seems like is happen I know you mentioned sort of one of the effects of globalization is the financial industry has globalized and move much more away from sort of local seems like one of the downsides of that is you’re seeing then you know

Capital used to be the idea that money was lent locally you know to businesses so you know both supported local businesses but there was a direct connection between lenders and jobs and sort of meaningful working communities as you globalized that it becomes purely about profit and return on investment

And you devalue all these other pieces of sort of quality of place and so I’m wondering does does that play into the work and is that something I mean like how does that trend get reversed because I don’t see it sort of one quick thing

To preface my answer is that you know I think there used to be the view in economics that a sort of political public investment in private investment sort of crowded each other out and so if you had more investment in infrastructure things of that nature you tended to get less

Private obstruction interest rates will go up people would borrow less and I think actually the last decade or two has has made very clear that that’s not the case that they actually are quite complimentary but to get to really to your question I think you’re absolutely

Right you know the we have we have asset classes that are sort of very emerging market based and so people can say I want to have exposure to China and I want to put my money there because I think it’s promising place to invest and

You can go pick out from a menu of funds to do that but you can’t say you know what I really think Cleveland is gonna be successful in the future and I want to invest in Cleveland and Cleveland fund and there are actually people working on this I don’t know if you

Familiar with AIG actually there’s a bill also I’m gonna forget the name of it but perhaps someone can Alby but there’s a legislation that has been proposed that would that would encourage people to develop these local area funds and so you can you can invest in something like a Detroit fund or an

Illinois fund and the advantage to that is that so much of what we talk about with cities is about scale so if you want to you know rejuvenate a downtown that’s struggling it doesn’t help to put a business there if no people live there and doesn’t help to put housing there if

There’s no businesses there right because you have to have all of these things together for a place to thrive if you had have an asset manager who’s got a bunch of funding to play with and is able to coordinate investments and so to say we’re going to fund this residential

Investment at the same time we’re gonna fund these you know these retail investments and we’re also going to fund this you know venture capital firm then you’ve got the ability to coordinate within a single place and to get that cluster development going and so I think

That is an important part of the picture that’s a thing that I think is worth focusing more attention on join me in thinking Ryan for an enlightening luncheon you

ID: 9JSyZVbGqLE
Time: 1511978564
Date: 2017-11-29 21:32:44
Duration: 00:52:07

منبع