Job Creation Works Better at State & National Level
By Julie Westland
If you’ve ever attended public hearings about development, you’ve probably heard the promise
of job generation in conjunction with new development projects. In reality, the promise of new
jobs tends to create the opposite effect. People are lured to developing areas in hopes of getting
a job. Employers hire the most qualified candidates who are often outside the city or county in
which the new jobs will be located. The city or town typically is left with a new crop of
unemployed residents, and/or new housing developments which require taxpayers to fund
maintenance/services for the expanded infrastructure. Unemployment actually increases in many
instances. Two Colorado examples come to mind:
Ft Collins enticed Anheuser-Busch (AB) with subsidies so they would build a factory in hopes of
creating jobs for its residents. The application process favored locals, but in the end, only 133
Ft. Collins residents were hired out of 500 jobs (and 20,000 initial applicants). It’s not
known how many people moved to the area hoping to get employed, but the City kept statistics
on the employees’ residences and found that, due to payment of subsidies to AB, the cost to
taxpayers was $376,000 per resident employed.
In 2007, BBC Research and Consulting was commissioned to study the affects of rapid growth
from the oil business on 4 western Colorado counties. The counties and towns were
concerned about what impacts future growth would have, how they’d absorb the population
growth and accompanying demand on services, the impacts and costs of expanding and
maintaining infrastructure, and the quality of life to long-time residents. A related citizen survey
revealed that residents in Rifle (Citizen Telegram, Feb. 10, 2010) preferred growth to occur in or
around town, protecting agricultural areas to preserve the rural character of the communities,
and 75% responded that open space and trails were very important to them.
These studies, and many others like them, show that there are some unexpected results at the
local level from job creation. First, not all jobs go to local residents. Second, job creation
generates the expectation of employment, and attracts more people to the county– often
increasing, rather than decreasing, unemployment. And third, the new residents of the county add
to all of the county’s problems around affordable housing. Job creation is a valuable thing for our
federal and state governments to pursue; it energizes the economy and provides income taxes.
But a local government should pursue other means of dealing with unemployment, including
training assistance for residents and job-fair type activities. Job creation usually turns out to be a
net negative on the local level.
Julie Westland is a Clear Creek County resident, and a director of SOLVE, an organization
promoting sustainable land-use practices.
Clear Creek County Jobs in 2010
Industry Group
Total
Employment
Employment
Percent of
Basic
Traditional – All Totals 983 26.71%
Traditional – Agribusiness – All Totals 42 1.15%
Traditional – Mining 670 18.22%
Traditional – Manufacturing 34 0.92%
Traditional – Government 236 6.42%
Regional Center / National Services – All Totals 290 7.89%
Regional Center / National Services – Construction 51 1.39%
Regional Center / National Services – Communications 34 0.92%
Regional Center / National Services – Trade and Transportation 29 0.79%
Regional Center / National Services – Professional and Business Services 77 2.08%
Regional Center / National Services – Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 1 0.02%
Regional Center / National Services – Education and Health Services 99 2.69%
Tourism 1343 36.50%
Households – Commuters 193 5.24%
Households – Retirees 427 11.61%
Households – with Public Assistance Income (excluding retirees) 117 3.19%
Households – with Dividends, Interest, and Rental Income (excluding retirees) 210 5.71%
Total Direct Basic 3679
Indirect Basic 116
Worker Local Res. Services (Non Basic) 859
Total All Industries 4539
Ratio: Total / Direct Basic 1