Furst things first

I was going to write about "boots on the ground" - and may yet still - but, Jay Furst has asked some fair questions on his FB page about "The nature of things". So, Furst things first:

Not sure what to make of this type of criticism of DMC and "building that thing": Should Mayo and Rochester only push for high-wage job creation? How would that happen? Are low-wage jobs worse than no jobs at all? What's the point of this argument?

First of all, though the Viva City post in question is intended to be part of the conversation we are having regarding "DMC" and what continues to gather around it, it is not a criticism of DMC per se. The post is based in part upon the "Destination Medical Center Jobs Impacts," a forecast of DMC job growth dated 03.15.2013. The post does appropriate the "let's build this thing" t-shirt, but more in service of a conceit than a critique. And yes, so far this may be a quibble, but perhaps in the quibbling comes a bit more clarity of intent.

Should Mayo and Rochester only push for high-wage job creation?

The short answer is, No. But, the question misconstrues the concern. The distinction that makes the difference that matters more is not between high-wage jobs or no jobs, or even simply high-wage jobs and low-wage jobs. What matters more is the difference between jobs that pay wages, provide benefits, and open opportunities that will sustain families and allow them to prosper and jobs that do not. Also, I would not place the implications of the question upon Mayo.

If the question can be rephrased: "Should Rochester only push for jobs that pay wages, provide benefits, and open opportunities that will sustain families and allow them to prosper?" the only answer is, "Yes." I would be especially interested in how an official of the city (or county or state) would justify answering otherwise.

How would that happen?

A fair question and the first answers will sound snarky, but are not. How would that happen? It would happen on purpose and can happen no other way. What comes of all this economic growth will come as the result of choices made (and being made daily) in this community. The only body that has (or should have) the authority to determine what these choices are is the city council. For more important to our common futures than having a choice, are the choices from which we have to choose. If we are lead to believe or assume that the only choice we have is that reflected in another of the questions above: "low-wage job or no job", then we are being ill-served.

What then might we ask of the city to do on purpose to push for jobs that pay wages, provide benefits, and open opportunities that will sustain families and allow them to prosper?

(1) Take seriously and defend jealousy its role in the approval process for any development plans brought before it.

(2) In the exercise of that role, balance the public and private interests as well as the common good of the community. The instrument available for it to do so is its own general plan for development to which all other plans must conform. In its own plans establish the alignment of urban growth and economic development with other vital community interests such as jobs that pay wages, provide benefits, and open opportunities that will sustain families and allow them to prosper.

(3) Carefully attend to the criteria and process for evaluating and underwriting development proposals in a manner that employs strategies such as community benefit agreements, health impact assessments, and poverty impact statements, and other planning and policy tools that address the consequences of the structure, policies, and practices of our local economy as it grows.

Of course, for "that to happen" we all must take on this purpose - or enough of us. Other parties in this planning of our futures might take it up as well, each in their way: the DMCC, the economic development authority, the county, the chamber, non-profits, neighborhoods, faith communities, etc.

Are low-wage jobs worse than no jobs at all?

Recall I said Jay asked some fair questions. Most of them are. This question is not. Perhaps in the abstract it is an interesting question for it is densely packed with moral implications that would serve well to elicit some very basic assumptions we hold. Perhaps it was posed in that way. If however, this question is posed as a serious question of policy, one whose answer would guide decisions, then there is no easy way to say this: as a serious question of policy, "Are low-wage jobs worse than no jobs at all?" is morally hazardous* in its implications and consequences. *(And, please, this is no characterization of the person posing the question.)

What's the point of this argument?

I take the question here to not refer to "argument" as a fight, but rather, "argument" as a discussion (see) If that is the case and we are speaking here of a conversation about topics about which reasonable people might have honest differences, in that context, with regard to these issues, the point of this argument is to have it.