Selling may play a factor on this as well. Although I did hear they aren't any type of batteries, but moving green also. So I'm wondering if a degree would be required.
Saying we shouldn't depend on the auto industry is much different than saying we should reject it and lose what jobs we have left, and future ones. Like it or not, the auto industry will continue to important to Lansing and Michigan for a very long time, no matter what form cars take.
There's a difference between saying yes to an industry, and saying yes while giving them $millions of tax credits to entice them here. Also, how's it good to bring 50,000 jobs to the state if all you're doing is adding 50,000 more people to the unemployment numbers and forclosed homes in 3 years if the industry doesn't support that. You can say to an industry that might not be a good choice without giving millions in tax abatements.
Keep in mind, my point is theoretical, because in this specific case, I think this opportunity is worth the risk and I fully agree/support giving tax breaks to entice 50,000 jobs for a high tech battery industry. However, I just wanted to make the point that it's not just a given to bring jobs, that there are other things to consider, and in some situations it might not be the best decision. For example, would any of us support GM building a brand new factory in Lansing to build new Hummer trucks that's twice as big and get 5mpg? Probably not, because we know it would just be shut down in a couple years...obviously that is an exaggerated example, but that's my point.
Yeah, I see what you mean. I wouldn't want to see a ton of GM factories being built in Lansing. Cities like Seattle, Portland, New York City, Minneapolis, Boston, Los Angeles, Denver etc... are doing really well and are not depending largely on the auto industry nor any industry that has been bankrupt ( or instead I probably should say) on the edge of falling apart. Although I'm not against the auto industry, and I know many of the buisnesses are working to find better ways to create automobiles for the environment, economy etc... So I'm not surprise at all about new plants going up that may be more green etc... I just wouldn't want to see Lansing depend largely on such ( I could write more on this topic).
Flint, Saginaw, and Detroit are major auto industry spots and all seem to be unsafe, declining, I just have no desire to live in those areas.
Micro, I'm glad that you believe the Big Three will be gone in a few years, because I'm not that confident. In fact, I think it's ridiculous. We should be taking whatever jobs we can get and wonder about what sectors they are in when we get out of this hell-hole of a recession. How anyone could think any of these announcements aren't good is beyond me. The idea that we're going to transition out of a manfacturing economy to something else in a few years is just plain silly. We're going to need transitional jobs, and Lansing will always manufacture (and should) something. I'm really grown weary of, and annoyed with, the want and belief that America shouldn't be making anything anymore as if everyone can or should work in the high-tech industry. We're always going to have a manufacturing base, here, along with government and higher education, and we should.
It's bad enough to hear someone peddle this sentiment that doesn't know any better. It's entirely another to hear it from someone that should know better. It's as if people are naive enough to believe that the new battery technology has no application outside of the Big Three, and even the entire auto industry. No, this is "all that", and if Michigan gets on top of this, just another feather to put in our cap.
I'd be happy if even this was just a transition industry, but it's more than that, so it's not like were having to settle for anything, here. How could some of you be so off the mark? Sorry, but I just can't believe I'm hearing anyone complain about a new industry (and a high-tech one, at that) of which Michigan could become a forerunner of just because it's connected to the auto industry.
LMich, do you even read my ENTIRE posts? Please reread the first sentence of my last paragraph in my previous post:
"Keep in mind, my point is theoretical, because in this specific case, I think this opportunity is worth the risk and I fully agree/support giving tax breaks to entice 50,000 jobs for a high tech battery industry."
I never even hinted at the Big Three being gone ever...you're just making straw-man arguments because that's never been my assertion. After making the point a second time, you still missed it...so I will make it AGAIN: you say "we should be taking whatever jobs we can get..." and I say there is a difference between taking jobs, and giving huge tax breaks to get jobs. And with that difference is where you apply discretion and consideration to which industries you want to foster and grow, and which ones should only grow per demand. I ask you this, how can someone who should know so much about urban planning, and city master plans, think that you should just throw tax incentives around without any plan for where you want your city to be? I think that's pretty off the mark.
You say that we're "naive enough to believe that the new battery technology has no application outside of the Big Three." You're just making this up...I previously posted: "However, if these batteries and the technology from the R&D divisions can become applicable to cell phones, laptops, etc. (other industries), then this opportunity is truly a great one." Seriously, if you're going to bash my argument, at least read the darn thing!
You say we're off the mark, but you haven't even listened to anything we've said.
The really frustrating thing for me is that I agree with almost all of you said LMich. I agree that manufacturing is important for the U.S. and Lansing and I think it would be a big mistake to let it go, both economically as well as strategically. I think a diversified economy includes biotech, IT, healthcare, education etc. AND manufacturing...in fact, manufacturing can be high-tech such as the two GM facilities here in Lansing. I just tried to make a theoretical point that it isn't a black and white decision, that there might be some situations in which you might actually not give tax incentives for jobs (but I would never say you should reject jobs from any industry...which I've never said). So I don't know why you have to start getting all defensive and calling people naive, and flat out fabricating arguments that no one made just to refute them.
LMich, I disagree with you when stating that Lansing should be manufacturing and not be high-tech. Lansing can make that transition, and yes there will be cities that are complete manufacurting places... but hopefully not Lansing. With changes being done, we are moving more positively.
Reading Micro last post I disagree with Micro as well. I don't think Lansing needs to depend completely on the auto industry while there is so many other job fields out there that will help diversify the economy.
Comments
Keep in mind, my point is theoretical, because in this specific case, I think this opportunity is worth the risk and I fully agree/support giving tax breaks to entice 50,000 jobs for a high tech battery industry. However, I just wanted to make the point that it's not just a given to bring jobs, that there are other things to consider, and in some situations it might not be the best decision. For example, would any of us support GM building a brand new factory in Lansing to build new Hummer trucks that's twice as big and get 5mpg? Probably not, because we know it would just be shut down in a couple years...obviously that is an exaggerated example, but that's my point.
Flint, Saginaw, and Detroit are major auto industry spots and all seem to be unsafe, declining, I just have no desire to live in those areas.
It's bad enough to hear someone peddle this sentiment that doesn't know any better. It's entirely another to hear it from someone that should know better. It's as if people are naive enough to believe that the new battery technology has no application outside of the Big Three, and even the entire auto industry. No, this is "all that", and if Michigan gets on top of this, just another feather to put in our cap.
I'd be happy if even this was just a transition industry, but it's more than that, so it's not like were having to settle for anything, here. How could some of you be so off the mark? Sorry, but I just can't believe I'm hearing anyone complain about a new industry (and a high-tech one, at that) of which Michigan could become a forerunner of just because it's connected to the auto industry.
"Keep in mind, my point is theoretical, because in this specific case, I think this opportunity is worth the risk and I fully agree/support giving tax breaks to entice 50,000 jobs for a high tech battery industry."
I never even hinted at the Big Three being gone ever...you're just making straw-man arguments because that's never been my assertion. After making the point a second time, you still missed it...so I will make it AGAIN: you say "we should be taking whatever jobs we can get..." and I say there is a difference between taking jobs, and giving huge tax breaks to get jobs. And with that difference is where you apply discretion and consideration to which industries you want to foster and grow, and which ones should only grow per demand. I ask you this, how can someone who should know so much about urban planning, and city master plans, think that you should just throw tax incentives around without any plan for where you want your city to be? I think that's pretty off the mark.
You say that we're "naive enough to believe that the new battery technology has no application outside of the Big Three." You're just making this up...I previously posted: "However, if these batteries and the technology from the R&D divisions can become applicable to cell phones, laptops, etc. (other industries), then this opportunity is truly a great one." Seriously, if you're going to bash my argument, at least read the darn thing!
You say we're off the mark, but you haven't even listened to anything we've said.
I think the new battery work coming to Michigan is a GREAT thing!
Reading Micro last post I disagree with Micro as well. I don't think Lansing needs to depend completely on the auto industry while there is so many other job fields out there that will help diversify the economy.