|
| |
ADVERTISEMENT
|
| |
 |
| HAVE YOUR SAY |
| Feel strongly about something? Share it with the community by writing a letter to the editor. |
| You’ll need to include your name, address and daytime phone number. (We’ll only publish your name and hometown.) We reserve the right to edit letters, but if you keep yours to 300 words or less, we won’t ask you to shorten it. If your letter is published, please wait 30 days before submitting another. |
| Send it to: |
| E-mail: letters@heraldnet.com |
Mail: Letters section
The Herald
P.O. Box 930
Everett, WA 98206 |
| Fax: 425-339-3458 |
| Have a question about letters? Contact Carol MacPherson (cmacpherson@heraldnet.com or 425-339-3472). |
| |
Published: Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Other states want our jobs; complacency isn't an option
By Richard S. Davis
About a dozen of the 60 people gathered at the Museum of Flight on Thursday really mattered. Members of the bipartisan legislative aerospace taskforce, they'd been invited to a briefing sponsored by the Aerospace Futures Alliance.
"I've been asked to hit you in the nose," Tom Captain told them, "to wake you up with facts and data." His message: Although the state won the Boeing 787 competition with an impressive package of tax incentives and regulatory reforms, preserving our aerospace cluster, we've since slipped. In 2003 Washington earned an "A" for competitiveness; we now merit a "C."
Captain, vice chairman of Deloitte Consulting's aerospace and defense industry practice, didn't deliver a sucker punch. Everyone in the room saw it coming, having been set up by previous speakers, including Mike Bair, Boeing's vice president for business strategy and marketing.
Bair worked the body effectively, reminding everyone that about half of Boeing's 150,000 jobs are located in Washington, that global demand is tremendous, and the company has a "great long-term future."
But there's no assurance of the bright future unfolding here.
Tom Flavin, head of King County's economic development agency, told his story. Flavin was the newly-elected mayor of Burbank, Calif., when Lockheed took 10,000 jobs from that city to Georgia in the early 1990s. Since then, the region has lost 100,000 aerospace jobs, a devastating drain on the local economy.
So when Captain began, everyone understood the stakes.
I'm not here to provide meeting minutes. But Washington politicians must not fall into the trap of believing only the spam that floods inboxes whenever a national magazine says something good about us. So here's a taste of what Captain told legislators.
Since the 2003 success, Washington has been out of the running in five site selection contests. In 2006, South Carolina landed Global Aeronautica, a 787 supplier. This year Bombardier opened a major plant in Mexico that will eventually employ 1,000, Spirit Aerospace unveiled a new composite plant in North Carolina and Rolls Royce agreed to site a new jet engine plant in Virginia. And, although we're tempted to move it from the loss column, the Air Force tanker deal remains up for grabs.
As technology replaces labor, airplane manufacturing becomes increasingly mobile. And the costs of production -- including compensation, living costs, transportation, purchased parts and supplier reliability -- matter more.
"We have a disadvantage in all of these categories," says Captain.
Compared to our major competitors, globally and in the U.S., costs here are high. We face vigorous competition from Poland, Mexico, the Czech Republic and the rapidly growing economies in China, Russia, India and Japan. Meanwhile, South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina, Kansas and Texas continue to develop strong aerospace clusters with skilled workforces, lower labor costs, affordable housing and comfortable commutes.
To a legislator's question about the Forbes magazine article touting Washington as a great place to do business, Captain responded, "Look at the data. Look at the deals ... I don't think so." The facts speak for themselves. We've lost our competitive advantage.
Complacency and buyer's remorse took hold in Olympia before then-Gov. Locke gave away the last of his bill-signing pens. Critics questioned the cost of the package. Some even doubted the need to compete.
Captain contends competition has only intensified since then. Not only must regions pay to play, he says, they must "pay to stay" competitive.
That doesn't go down well here. But politics and commerce have this in common: The games are played on an ever-shifting field, where pragmatism and survival require constant adaptation to changing circumstances.
The challenges facing aerospace confront all businesses here. Washington can regain its competitive edge, if lawmakers make it a priority.
A few examples:
Because the state Supreme Court recently invalidated an important section of unemployment insurance law, the next legislature will have to clarify the law to avoid unnecessary tax increases on employers. Recent waffling on the WASL should stop and legislators recommit to high math and science standards. And, they must resolve a nearly $3 billion budget problem without raising taxes or reneging on existing tax incentive programs.
Before they worry overmuch about the next aerospace deal, lawmakers have a lot of catching up to do.
Richard S. Davis writes on public policy, economics and politics. His e-mail address is richardsdavis@gmail.com
|