Top Ten Jobs of the Next Decade

NPR had a story this morning on where this decade’s jobs will come from. The disheartening news was that 6 out of the top seven fastest-growing jobs are low-skill, low-wage jobs.

The top ten:

1. Registered nurses
2. Home health aids
3. Customer service representatives
4. Food preparation and serving workers
5. Personal and home care aides
6. Retail salespersons
7. Office clerks
8. Accountants
9. Nursing aides, orderlies and attendants
10. Postsecondary teachers

According to Harvard University labor economist Lawrence Katz:

“The challenge is to move those jobs up the skills ladder. There’s no reason, he says, that home health care workers couldn’t be better educated to provide patients with greater value and, as a result, command higher wages to improve their own living standards.”

The trick, he says, is to “professionalize” these jobs.

Two thoughts:

1) Perhaps we need to think differently about the service industry. We can’t thrive as a nation by serving hamburgers to each other.

Some of the long-time property owners here in our downtown were retailers. They started out selling shoes, then started a business, then bought the building.  That’s retail but it’s not a career to sneeze at.  Well-educated or well-trained retailers can go head to head with the nationals because they have the knowledge and support system necessary to be successful.

2) Perhaps we need to stop obsessing over manufacturing jobs, say goodbye to large scale industries and put our money and efforts towards other areas.  Why can’t we use Apple or Microsoft as a business model rather than General Motors and US Steel?

Creative Incubator

Here in Columbia we have a new business incubator focusing primarily on life sciences.  It fits nicely with the University of Missouri’s focus on biomedical (particularly veterinary technology), agriculture and sustainability and renewable resources.

We also have an arts incubator of sorts, Orr Street Studios.  Artists can rent small studio space and share a public gallery and a part-time marketing/events person.  The interaction between artists of all types helps get their creative juices flowing.

What about a similar set up for small businesses?  Creative companies, non-profits and other professionals often start out with a skeleton staff and a budget best reserved for things other than rent.  Small offices, public meeting room, space to gather, even a shared kitchen.  Even among different fields, the ideas and the energy would be contagious.  Can you imagine how much more creative you’d be than if you were sitting alone in a home office?

Size Does Count

A Kauffman Foundation report offers some interesting insight into the job market:

“If one excludes startups, an analysis of the 2007 Census data shows that young firms (defined as one to five years old) still account for roughly two-thirds of job creation, averaging nearly four new jobs per firm per year. Of the overall 12 million new jobs added in 2007, young firms were responsible for the creation of nearly 8 million of those jobs.”

They found this trend in the Columbia, MO job market as well. The last five years have seen:

  • 20% increase in public sector jobs.
  • 22% decrease in jobs created by out-of-state companies
  • 22% in jobs created by small firms (1-9 employees)
  • 7% increase in jobs created by mid-sized firms (10-100 employees)
  • 22% decrease in jobs created by large firms (100+ employees)
It’s clear the old paradigm for Columbia no longer holds.  We can no longer rely on Quaker, 3M or State Farm to locate a manufacturing plant or a regional headquarters in our city.  Instead, we need to focus on home-grown businesses–young, creative and forward-thinking entrepreneurs who like the Columbia lifestyle and want to plant their business here.
In addition, my experience is that most of these small start-ups are creative companies–marketing agencies, architectural firms, filmmakers and video production, and so forth.  Because of their smaller size, they’re nimble, innovative and quick to jump at an opportunity.  I see these businesses set up shop in small, one or two room offices only to quickly outgrow their space.  In fact, our biggest challenge now is to find larger space for these companies so we can keep them in our downtown. These companies are our future and we need to nurture them so they’ll grow.


We’re all aware of the NIMBY phenomenon–“Not In My Backyard”–but I’ve begun noticing a new one, NIICHI or “Not If I Can’t Have It”.

A small but vocal group of business and property owners recently came together in our city to oppose Tax Increment Financing, a new development incentive designed to encourage more downtown infill projects. TIFs are designed to keep the current tax revenue stream steady while using future taxes that will be created from the project to help fund the project. However, these opponents characterized the program a literally taking money away from the schools or the city and giving it to property owners–to the point where the public began to think that the developer was being handed a large check.

Their primary argument, though, was that they didn’t have any help when they started their business, so why should someone else get help. Setting aside the fact these are public programs to which any qualified person can apply, it demonstrated a strong emotional undercurrent–a belief that there are limited resources and helping one person necessarily means another will be harmed. (Interestingly, the two projects under consideration were a hotel and an apartment building–both guaranteed to bring new customers into their businesses. In other words, two projects designed to increase the size of the pie.)

Part of this stems from what’s happening at the national level. With the downturn in the economy, both the past and the present administration have supported wide-ranging stimulus packages in an attempt to get it back on track. Government stimulus means that future tax dollars are being used to help out certain groups of people today. For someone struggling to support their own family and manage their debt, this is easily seen as a program designed to take money out of their pocket and give it to someone else.

This may be a passing phenomenon–people feeling the pinch of a tight economy–but it’s something to watch for. How can we do a better job of explaining a development incentive as something that creates a bigger pie? Better yet, how do we do a better job of designing incentives so that everyone feels the benefit?

Are chains the secret to a successful downtown?

Like many who work in downtown economic development, I often have people approach me asking, “Why don’t we get a Gap? (Interchangeable, of course, with Banana Republic, Ann Taylor, Loft, Eddie Bauer, or Abercrombie.) It’s a legitimate question. These stores are usually found down the road at the mall and the demographic of the customers often fits well with a particular downtown. However, it may be the wrong question.

First of all, Gap and many of these larger retailers are struggling–not just because of the economy but because of some strategic errors in how they positioned themselves. Ann Taylor and Banana Republic are struggling, mainly due to a few years of dull offerings. Ann Taylor’s new line may help but Banana is still trying to find a niche. Abercrombie focused on casual wear, missing out on the dress and jewelry trend that hit a few years back. They’ve just started adding dresses to their collection. Eddie Bauer’s coming in a distant third with the outdoor/casual set, mainly because they were producing clothing that was too rugged-looking for normal wear but not good enough for actually wearing outdoors. Their stores now carrying the First Ascent Expedition Outfitting suited for actual mountaineering–if the large photo displays of rugged men scaling Everest are any indication. (By the way, the line does appear to be creating some excitement–in the store I visited, this section was by far the most crowded, albeit with people who probably avoid even driving in the snow.)

The economy’s hit local apparel stores as well but the one thing they have going for themselves is that they’re nimble. A good retailer can spot trends and move quickly on them, rather than waiting for the corporate structure of an Ann Taylor to make a course correction. Nationals design their own lines so if it fails, it fails together. Locals buy from a range of lines and, like many in our downtown, they actually make their own apparel or rely on local artisans for their jewelry. If a piece fails it’s not a harbinger of a failed line; instead they can move quickly to the next option.

Nationals certainly have their place and that place is often in a downtown. But let’s not look at them as the saviors of a downtown. Instead, take a look at what makes the locals so successful and figure out a way to franchise that.

Different nations, same problem

I recently gave a talk to a group of professionals from South Korea who were participating in the University of Missouri’s Global Leadership Program, a year-long program designed to teach government officials and other professionals the intricacies of American business, culture and language. Before my talk began I had a chance to talk with several of them about what issues downtowns in South Korea were facing. The answer was surprising, although it shouldn’t have been.

“Our downtowns are suffering because malls were built on the outskirts of town and everyone’s going there to shop.”

I guess we’re all more alike than we think.