Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Wall Street Journal, in partnership with Moody’s Analytics, just released its annual rankings for the strongest labor markets in the country, taking into account the unemployment rate, labor-force participation rate, employment-level changes, labor-force size and wages.
For metro areas with a population of more than 1 million, Nashville, Tennessee, tops the list, followed by No. 2 Austin, Texas; No. 3 Jacksonville, Florida; No. 4 Dallas; No. 5 Raleigh, North Carolina; No. 6 Atlanta; No. 7 Orlando, Florida; No. 8 Charlotte, North Carolina; No. 9 Salt Lake City; and No. 10 Miami.
What do the hottest job markets in the country have in common? Some have great music scenes (Nashville and Austin), no state income taxes (Florida and Tennessee), innovative state economic development programs and great research universities. But one common trait shared by all the top job markets is that they are in states where Republicans control the Legislature.
Why is that interesting to point out? Well, we often hear that Indiana’s socially conservative agenda will turn off recent college grads, thus hampering Indiana’s and Indianapolis’ efforts to retain our best and brightest. That Indiana’s Statehouse Republican supermajority—by focusing on issues such as abortion bans, how to teach race in schools, what type of books are permitted in school libraries, transgender issues and anti-ESG legislation—will send the wrong message to the world, thus dissuading companies and young professionals from locating in Indiana.
The reality is that all the states that are home to the hottest job markets and fastest-growing economies are either more socially conservative than Indiana, or no less so. Tennessee, Texas, Florida, North Carolina and Georgia are leading the country in high-wage-job-creating investments and population growth, yet their legislatures are controlled by Republicans who are proposing and enacting legislation that is just as socially conservative as those laws proposed by Indiana Statehouse Republican legislators.
Blaming Indiana’s Republican supermajority for Indianapolis’ comparatively slower population or economic growth, or inability to retain more college graduates, is letting Mayor Hogsett, the City-County Council, and corporate and civic leaders off the hook.
Austin and Nashville, the two hottest job markets, happen to be state capitals in ultra-conservative states. Yet Nashville and Austin are considered the gold standard in economic development circles, as they each are attracting talent and jobs at a breakneck pace.
In The Wall Street Journal rankings, Indianapolis comes in as the 13th-best labor market (trailing No. 11 Denver and No. 12 Tampa). No other Midwestern city cracks the top 20. Not bad, but we should aspire for better than tops in the Midwest.
In order for Indianapolis to move up, the mayor, City-County Council, and corporate and civic leaders must come together, develop new strategies and place some bets. Indianapolis has been fortunate to have had visionary mayors who took risks and made bets that paid off (e.g., the sports strategy). Other cities have copied our sports strategy and are gaining ground (e.g., Nashville).
No matter your stance on social issues, blaming Statehouse Republicans for Indianapolis’ challenges is passing the buck. Talented people and companies choose cities that have amenities and entertainment options, cultural diversity, residential density, strong schools and universities, low crime, affordable housing, strong job prospects and, yes, excitement.
Whoever wins this year’s mayoral race must think bigger and bolder about our city’s future and rally corporate, philanthropic and civic leaders toward a compelling vision. It is time for Indy to build on our strengths and place strategic bets for the future.•
__________
Feltman is CEO of IBJ Media. To comment, email nfeltman@ibj.com.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Nate is 100% correct.
I feel like you missed the single most common aspect of that particular Top 10 list – nine of the ten and the top eight are in warm climates. Indiana doesn’t have that advantage – nor mountains, or oceans and just a small slice of a Great Lake. Not much with can do about those geographic and climate restraints. But what we can do — but only with the help of a smarter and kinder state legislature — is to become a state with strong public education, that warmly embraces diversity (including immigrants from all over the world) and the arts and is not openly hostile towards LGBTQ communities. In this regard, Minnesota is a nice role model for us.
“Smarter and Kinder state legislature” – what does that mean? More lollipops for the constituents? Making sure our legislatures have read Kant and Hegel?
I used to agree that Minnesota used to seem like a nice role model, but I can assure you, most of Minnesota’s politics are driven by the Twin Cities (where over half the population lives), and most of its left-leaning population from the two main cities themselves, especially MPLS.
And MPLS is only a few notches above Portland in terms of devolving into an ideological cesspool. Uptown Minneapolis was a fashionable area–a more urbanized Broad Ripple–as recently as 2019. About 75% of the retail tenants have left because of the prevailing lawlessness. Downtown Minneapolis is basically a ghost town–the city that birthed Target can’t even support Targets within its city limits because of shoplifting. Nicollet Mall is without cars or people. Are they still avenging George Floyd’s death? How many more people need to get dragged into that gutter culture? How long before that gutter culture drags much of the rest of the state down with it? Will the people fleeing MPLS’s anarchy continue to vote for deluded pro-crime idealists when they move to the suburbs?
As for supporting LGBTQ communities, there’s a fine line between letting people live and marry who they want with ramrodding acceptance of all aspects of the subculture across mainstream life. Is there a place for those of us who support the former (let them marry) but not the latter: you know, people don’t want drag queens giving lap dances to 12-year-olds, or forcing churches or small businesses to embrace them? Or are people like us still “openly hostile”? If so, then oh well. They can move to Minneapolis.
Minneapolis has not attracted a new corporate headquarters in over 25 years. Progressive friendly states are losing population in droves. The facts don’t support your assertion.
Oh, but it certainly is a covariate to blame. Aside from refusing to give Indianapolis its fair share of road funding, and they constantly get overly-involved in Indianapolis affairs. In many cases, they won’t let the city lead.
And it doesn’t help that we are a cold weather city either.
Why did Indiana miss on the Intel plant that went to Ohio? We don’t have the workforce. What education investments is the supermajority making in the future? Why is the buck passed that the longer Republicans control schools, as they have since 2007-2008, the worse the outcomes get for students?
Joe, Ohio’s workforce is only marginally better than Indiana’s. If college education were a metric, Columbus would be ahead of Indy, but only by an indistinct margin. Indy is better educated than Cleveland or Cincinnati. If we want to split hairs, it may be possible that Columbus’s tiny advantage, mostly amplified by OSU, was the deal breaker. And it might come down to certain specialized skill sets already present, though I wouldn’t know what those might be. But, by and large, the message in Ohio is the same as Indiana: concerns of brain drain, worries about geographic blandness and weather. Even the Columbus-based media is admitting that most of these lucrative jobs won’t require college degrees: https://www(dot)dispatch(dot)com/story/business/employment/2023/02/06/intel-project-in-ohio-to-test-regions-workforce-ability/69866389007/
I mean, if Intel were to choose a place with a more significant education advantage but also a reasonably business friendly culture, they’d go to Raleigh/Durham or Atlanta or somewhere in Texas. If education were the pure basis (not a business friendly culture), they could choose the aforementioned MPLS/St Paul or Chicago.
Chances are, Intel chose Indiana over Ohio (and its other counterparts) because of very slight, seemingly subtle but ultimately deal-breaking financial incentives: e.g., Ohio’s willingness to submit to the federal stipulations of the CHIPS and Science Act.
I guess it’s particularly weird since, while Indiana has been a GOP stronghold for quite sometime, Ohio has only recently gone from light GOP to strong GOP. Yet still gets Intel. Is their GOP really that much more enlightened than Indiana’s?
Correction in my second-to-last paragraph: Intel chose Ohio over Indiana, obviously.
They’re able to land the deals. They’re able to keep Honda happy. They’re able to land Intel.
Indiana gets distribution centers. Lots of them.
And you know what else Ohio has? Decent infrastructure. Multiple times a year, I exit podunk Indiana and head into podunk Ohio. I know the moment I hit Ohio because the two lane roads are wider AND smoother.
Do I have the solution? No. But I would put forth that Indiana’s taxes are, if anything, too low and we aren’t investing enough in infrastructure.
It’s interesting that Feldman credits state gov’t for putting cities like Nashville and Austin at the top of the list, but then tasks the Indy mayor, city council and corporate and civic leaders with developing a strategy for Indy to move up. As others have noted, that’s difficult with a legislature that hates home rule. BTW 8 of the top 10 cities are led by Democrat mayors but it’s the GOP-led state legislatures that Feldman credits for their success.